the governance of natura 2000 sites: the importance of initial choices in the organisation of...

The governance of Natura 2000 sites: the importance of initial

choices in the organisation of planning processes

Raoul Beunen* and Jasper R. de Vries

Wageningen University, Land Use Planning Group, PO Box 47, 6700 AA Wageningen,The Netherlands

(Received 24 February 2010; final version received 29 November 2010)

The management of Natura 2000 sites faces several challenges. Responsibleauthorities need to achieve specific conservation objectives and they need tobalance these objectives with social and economic interests. A study of twocases, one in England and one in the Netherlands, shows that the initial choicesabout the organisation of a deliberative planning process can create a solid basisfor further co-operation. This paper contributes to the knowledge about thedesign and consequences of deliberative planning processes. It shows how aspecific process design can strengthen the possibilities to develop social capital,trust and reciprocity, but also how it can result in a deliberative quicksand,characterised by ongoing discussions and even conflicts between the variousstakeholders.

Keywords: nature conservation; habitats directive; participatory and collaborativeplanning; trust

1. Introduction

All members of the European Union (EU) are obligated to implement the Birds andHabitats Directives. This implementation includes the designation of Special Areasof Conservation (SACs) under the Habitats Directive and Special Protection Areas(SPAs) under the Birds Directive. Together, these areas form the Natura 2000network (CEC 2002). National governments are responsible for the management ofthese Natura 2000 sites, but in many cases they have delegated this responsibility tolocal and regional authorities. The authorities who are responsible need to balancethe conservation objectives of the Natura 2000 site with social and economicinterests. In many areas the authorities depend on other public and private parties toaid in achieving the conservation objectives, balance the varying interests and agreeto the management schemes (Ostermann 1998, Pinton 2001, Hiedanpaa 2002,Keough and Blahna 2006). It is thus no surprise that a great deal of attention is givento co-management of protected areas. The management of Natura 2000 sitesincludes organising discussions, making decisions about social and economicactivities and dealing with conflicts (Beunen and Van Ark 2007). The EU alsopromotes the involvement of other actors (CEC 2000, 2003, 2005). It is interesting to

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

Journal of Environmental Planning and Management

Vol. 54, No. 8, October 2011, 1041–1059

ISSN 0964-0568 print/ISSN 1360-0559 online

� 2011 University of Newcastle upon Tyne

DOI: 10.1080/09640568.2010.549034

http://www.informaworld.com

study how different governments organise this involvement of various actors inplanning processes (Scharpf 1997, Koppenjan and Klijn 2004, Van Ark 2005). Thechanges in the roles and responsibilities of governmental organisations, with agrowing emphasise on co-operation with non-governmental organisations in widelydiscussed in governance literature (Pierre and Peters 2000, Bevir 2004, Hajer 2006).These changes imply a shift in focus for many governmental organisations that areresponsible for the formulation and implementation of policies. Not only are theyresponsible for the output of their actions and the internal communications, theyalso have to organise a deliberative planning process in which other organisations(governmental as well as non-governmental) get involved. The implementation ofNatura 2000 at site level is an interesting example of these transitions in governanceand a good case to study the shifting roles and responsibilities of governmentalorganisation.

We need to study how the Natura 2000 policy is implemented in local andregional practices (Adger et al. 2003, Hajer and Wagenaar 2003), since the outcomesof political struggles at this level determine how the Natura 2000 sites will begoverned both now and in the future (Hillier 2002). Implementation research ‘‘needsto give attention to the characteristics of the actors required to interact and to thestructured relationships between them’’ (Hill and Hupe 2003, p. 480). The role ofgovernment actors within these practices is interesting because they take the formaldecisions, and also because they have a strong influence on how the planning anddecision-making processes are organised. We are interested in how the responsibleauthorities deal with this task, how they organise the planning processes, how theyinvolve other actors in these processes and what the outcomes of these processes are.

The experiences with Natura 2000 vary between member states and betweendifferent sites within these member states. Whereas some authors report positiveexperiences (e.g. Jones and Burgess 2005, Milligan et al. 2009), others describetroublesome implementation elsewhere (Krott et al. 2000, Stoll-Kleemann 2001,Hiedanpaa 2002). Each member state differs in the way it implements Natura 2000,but the integration of specific conservation objectives with various other social andeconomic interests is a responsibility and challenge shared by many authoritiesthroughout the European Union.

This paper presents a study towards the planning processes of two Natura 2000sites: the Thanet Coast project in England and the formulation of a managementplan for the Wieden-Weerribben area in the Netherlands. Both projects wereinitiated because the responsible authorities wanted to clarify the consequences thatdesignation as a Natura 2000 site would have for the social and economic activitiesin and around the sites. Both the UK and the Netherlands have a long history ofnature conservation (Van der Windt 1995, Rootes 2007) and spatial planning (Hajerand Zonneveld 2000). Nevertheless, the implementation of the Birds and HabitatsDirectives seems to have caused more problems in the Netherlands than in the UK(Bouwma et al. 2008). The aim of this paper is to present useful insights about therelationship between the organisation of a planning process about a Natura 2000 sitein specific contexts and the outcomes of these processes and to draw some importantlessons for the governance of Natura 2000 sites.

The results of this study are relevant for researchers who study theimplementation of Natura 2000 as well as for the people involved in the planningand management of Natura 2000 sites. In addition, it is also relevant in a broadercontext of environmental planning and management. The discussion about the

1042 R. Beunen and J.R. de Vries

governance of Natura 2000 can be placed in the context of the wider discussionabout ecosystem management. Various authors have elaborated on the pros andcons of ecosystem management, and the challenges and risks of participatoryapproaches (see e.g. Goodwin 1998, Ledoux et al. 2000, Rydin and Pennington 2000,Pinton 2001, Keough and Balhna 2006, Rauschmayer et al. 2008). In turn, thesediscussions are part of a much wider discussion in planning and public policy aboutthe role of governmental organisations and the possibilities of collaborative, co-operative and communicative planning (for example, Healey 1997, Jordan et al.2005, Van den Hove 2006, Van Assche and Verschraegen 2008).

2. The governance of Natura 2000 sites

Natura 2000 is a network of sites designated under the European Birds and HabitatsDirectives. The two directives provide a list of species and habitats that requirespecific protection and for which the EU member states are obligated to designateprotected areas. This formal designation is based on scientific data only, and in mostmember states the designation is co-ordinated by the national government.Designation as such does not protect the area, and the real implementation ofboth Directives and the protection of species and habitats is something that must beachieved at site level. The local and regional practices, where conservation objectivesmust be weighed against other social and economical objectives and where they areintegrated into other policies, will determine the success of Natura 2000 (Alphanderyand Fortier 2001, Beunen et al. 2009).

The designation of Natura 2000 sites has faced delays in many countries.Currently most countries have finished this task, although some still have to get theirlists formally accepted. The next challenge is to organise the management of all thesesites. In most countries the national government has delegated this task to local andregional authorities and/or nature conservation agencies. These organisations haveto think about the measures that are necessary to achieve conservation objectives,and they are responsible for preventing deterioration of the sites. In many areas, theauthorities also need to think about what the consequences of designation as aNatura 2000 site might be for other social and economic activities in and around thesite. This is not an easy task, and it is therefore gaining more and more attention indiscussions and debates about Natura 2000 (see Stoll-Kleemann 2001, Scholl andChilla 2005, Beunen 2006).

In many cases the implementation of Natura 2000 implies that current land useregimes and policies need to be adjusted (Beunen 2006, Gibbs et al. 2007). Gibbs et al.(2007) argued that attempts to extend and redefine protected natural areas oftencollide with established modes of spatial regulations. In many areas, authorities andvarious other actors are struggling with the implementation of this new conservationregime. All these actors give meaning to new rules and have ideas about theimplications of these new rules for specific cases (Van Dijk and Beunen 2009).Governmental organisations still have a very specific role in these struggles. They areresponsible for organising the decision-making process and involving other actors inthis process, while still remaining the legal authority that takes decisions (Pierre andPeters 2000, Bevir 2004). The governance of Natura 2000 sites can be characterised asa complex network model. The (supra) national governments delegate theresponsibility to lower tiers of the government or agencies. These organisationshave to co-ordinate the process and deal with a variety of stakeholders.

Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 1043

There is a growing awareness for these practices of governance, in contrast togovernment, within literature about public policy and planning (Pierre and Peters2000, Bevir 2004, Hajer 2006). Many authors emphasise that the role ofgovernmental organisations is shifting from a role based on constitutional powerstowards a role based on co-ordination and fusion of public and private resources(Jordan et al. 2005). Specific attention is paid to the participation of variousstakeholders within the planning process. Edelenbos and Klijn (2006) followingBerry et al. (1993) distinguished between the way stakeholders are offered thepossibility to participate in the process and the extent to which various stakeholdersare able to influence the outcomes of the process. The ladder of citizen participation(e.g. Arnstein 1969) is frequently used to study the roles of stakeholders withinplanning process (Propper and Steenbeek 2001, Edelenbos and Klijn 2006). Withinthis ladder various steps, ranging from informing, with none or a limited role andinfluence from citizens to co-deciding are distinguished. In this last step the role ofpoliticians and administrations is restricted to accepting the decisions made by otherstakeholders. Important reasons for encouraging co-operation and participation aredemocratic ideals and the notion that including local ideas and knowledge can helpto increase public support and the social success of policies (Harrison et al. 1998,Ledoux et al. 2000, Alphandery and Fortier 2001, Hajer and Wagenaar 2003).Another reason is the fact that responsible authorities depend on other stakeholdersto be able to achieve specific objectives and therefore need to co-operate (Goodwin1998, Alexander 2001, Van Ark 2005). For the governance of Natura 2000 sites theseother stakeholders are often landowners and users in and near the sites whoseactivities need to be balanced with conservation objectives. For example, at manyNatura 2000 sites low-intensity agricultural practices such as grazing are necessary tomanage specific habitats (Ostermann 1998).

The growing awareness for co-operation and participation in both practice andresearch requires that more attention should be given to social networks and themechanisms that sustain co-operative behaviour (Bijlsma and Van der Bunt 2003).Social capital is often mentioned as an important concept that can enhance thesuccess of collaborative policy making and implementation. Social capital refers toelements of social structures which social actors can use to obtain their objectives,for example, the extent of social networks, the level of trust between actors andreciprocity (Rydin and Pennington 2000, Rydin and Falleth 2006). Pennington andRydin (2000, p. 236) argued that it is necessary to study whether these socialnetworks are showing signs of building more dense and trusting relations over timeand whether a different set of political or institutional structures change the qualityof the relationships within the network and its trajectory of development. Inaddition, Falleth (2006) argued that this network is very important in overcominginstitutional changes and co-operating with fragmented institutional structures.

For this study we focus on the implementation of Natura 2000 at site level and onhow deliberative networks are developed and managed by the responsibleauthorities. The design of a planning process creates a certain deliberative setting(Elster 1998) in which the deliberation between actors takes places and thereforeinfluences the possible outcomes of the planning process. Deliberation relates to thediscussions and struggles between the various stakeholders and is often used inrelation to the inclusion of private actors in policy making and the democraticqualities of a policy process (Bohman 1996, Dryzek 2000, Hajer and Wagenaar 2003,Fischer 2009). For example, Hajer (2005) referred to this democratic quality of


a discussion in which reciprocity, inclusiveness, openness, integrity, accountabilityand dialogue are leading issues. We focused on these deliberative dimensions of theplanning processes by studying the ways in which stakeholders participated in theprocess, to what extend they were able to influence the process and how thisinfluenced the outcomes of the planning processes. The results were related to themanagement objectives to evaluate how the organisation of the planning processinfluenced the attempts to achieve these objectives.

3. Research approach

We chose to study two projects in which current policies and management had to berevised in order to include Natura 2000 objectives. We used these cases to gain afurther understanding of the authorities’ role in organising the planning andmanagement of Natura 2000 sites. A study based on different cases has theadvantage that it helps to get a more complex and fuller explanation of thephenomena (De Vaus 2002, Eisenhardt 2009). In both of these cases, the regionalauthority organised a planning process in which it sought agreement with otherstakeholders regarding a management plan for the Natura 2000 site. The first projectwas the Thanet Coast project in England, the second was the formulation of amanagement plan for the Wieden-Weerribben area in the Netherlands. The cases donot reflect national differences in the implementation of Natura 2000 policies per seand are not used to make a comparison between two countries. The cases illustratedifferent planning approaches and are used to study important aspects of theplanning and management of Natura 2000 sites. A more detailed overview of bothprojects will be given in the following sections.

This study draws on a triangulation (Bryman 2004) of extensive literature studyand interviews with a variety of people to get a good impression of the two projectsand of the wider discussion about Natura 2000 that took place in the UK and theNetherlands. We held 21 interviews with people from conservation agencies, localand regional authorities, representatives of fisheries and farmers, as well asindividual farmers and fisherman. The interviews were semi-structured whichallowed us to discuss important topics. These topics included (1) processorganisation; (2) stakeholder involvement; (3) information provision; and (4) theinterviewees’ feelings about the process and project leaders. During the interviews,we gave the interviewees enough space to talk freely about the matters they thoughtwere important. In addition to the interviews, we studied the various websites of theorganisations involved in the projects and various documents about both areas andthe projects that took place in these areas.

4. The Thanet Coast

4.1. The area

The Thanet Coast is situated in the county of Kent in the southeast of England. Thearea is characterised by chalk rocks, lagoons, cliffs, beaches and mud flats. The sitewas designated due to its European nature value with regard to its chalk reefs,submerged sea caves, over-wintering populations of turnstones and golden plovers,and breeding grounds for little terns (JNCC 2008). The area is highly urbanised andvarious towns are situated near the coast. Approximately 127,000 people live in thecoastal area. Along the coast several beaches, small harbours and a port can be


found and tourism is an important economic activity with about 2 million touristseach year.

4.2. History and political context

The Thanet Coast has been an important tourist destination for decades. Due to achange in the economics of tourism (cheap package holidays abroad), the number oftourists began to drop at the end of the 1970s. In recent years, however, the numbersseem to have recovered. At present, tourism is concentrated in Broadstairs and partsof Ramsgate, with about 2 million visitors a year. The local authorities protestedagainst the designation of the area as a Natura 2000 site because they were afraidthat this would impose new restrictions on the developments in the tourist industry.This protest was one of the reasons for Natural England to involve all stakeholdersin the management phase.

Natural England, a public agency for the protection of England’s naturalenvironment, became responsible for the management of the Natura 2000 sites afterthe national authorities delegated this task to the different country agencies. Thecentral government sees their role as one of facilitation instead of control. They donot present strict implementation guidelines, but provide some policy guidance. Animportant aspect is that the development of the management should be withrelevant authorities and relevant stakeholders on the basis of common interest(DEFRA 2007).

4.3. The project

The Thanet Coast project was initiated by Natural England at the end of the 1990s,following its designation as a Special Area of Conservation (SAC). The projectbegan with the formation of a Management Group. This Management Group wascomposed of the 10 relevant authorities holding statutory responsibilities in the area.This group met twice a year to review management progress and reviewed themanagement scheme every six years. The Management Group was chaired byNatural England. At the same time, a Scientific Coastal Advisory Group was formedto discuss management and research issues and to keep the site protection up to datewith the latest scientific information.

Natural England installed a project team after initiating the Management Groupand the Scientific Coastal Advisory Group (SCAG). This project team was financedby different stakeholders. The team of two people stationed at the district office hadto organise the whole Thanet Coast project. From then on Natural England becameone of the stakeholders represented in the Management Group. This chosenorganisation structure made the project team the central part of the project, with theManagement Group as advisory board on the process and legal issues and theSCAG as scientific advice board.

At the start of the project, various workshops were organised by the project teamto involve public and private organisations and interested people. The aim of theseworkshops was to inform and involve local people in the management of the area.According to Natural England and the project team, ‘all people’ from Thanet wereinvited to be part of the process and nearly all user groups were involved. It isinteresting to note that the Thanet District Council refused to co-operate at thebeginning of the project because they were afraid that the designation of the SAC


would impose restrictions on economic development. They changed their opinionafter seeing the positive results of the first workshops organised by English Nature(today’s Natural England). At present, the district council is one of the mainfinanciers of the project.

During the first workshops, there was a tendency to keep expectations low inorder to build a relationship based on realistic perspectives. The project team choseto be open about the fact that they did not know everything. As the project leadersaid, it was ‘‘A little bit like trial and error’’. He believed that the uncertainties aboutplanning the project influenced their behaviour: ‘‘We had to be open about the factthat we didn’t know everything. That was the only way the workshops could help usknow how to continue’’. This was seen as important as different groups weresceptical about the project, because earlier projects (such as the Hover port) hadsevere negative impacts on the coast and it surroundings.

The composition of the stakeholder group changed several times during theproject, because new people joined the process by taking part in activities andworkshops at least twice a year. The stakeholders were in close contact with theproject team. All the interviewees said that the project leaders did a great deal, werealways available, were open and co-ordinated the project in a good way. Several ofthose interviewed said the approach chosen by the project team was very positive.The ‘common sense approach’ resulted in a lot of space for different options. Theinterviewees said that space was created for everyone to express their opinion andthat this gave them the feeling that the process was really open. During the project,an independent facilitator offered various opportunities for stakeholders to expresshow they felt, and this was experienced as something positive. After the workshop,the reports were sent around so that everyone could respond. This double checkenabled people to speak up without anyone being in doubt about what was said. Inaddition, various interviewees said that besides the official occasions, it was alwayspossible to contact the project team – just by picking up the phone. The discussioncould be ‘‘About everything you think that was important’’. In some cases this ledto new discussions, workshops or to new issues being incorporated into themanagement plan. An example is the inclusion of the protection of seals and clifftops. This flexibility in the process gave people the feeling that they were beingtaken seriously.

It was clear from the various interviews that information about the project wasalways available and that people could very easily ask further questions. One of theinterviewees commented that building a relationship between citizens and localauthorities was one of the most important things accomplished by the project teamfor the project. The stakeholders had a significant influence on the managementscheme. The project team stated that the management scheme was developed basedon the information from the scientific advisory group as well as the information fromother stakeholders.

During the project, various contracts were used to confirm arrangements thathad been made. One example was the contract between the relevant authorities andthe project team about the objectives of the project team. This was done because theproject team was paid by these authorities. Other contracts were used to makeagreements between recreational users and Natural England, to clarify the types ofactivities that were allowed or prohibited at the nature sites. Another contract wasmade between the coastal wardens and the project team to involve local residents inthe protection of birds in a beach area or bay close to their homes. The coastal


wardens were volunteers who talked with other residents if they caused too muchdisturbance to the environment.

4.4. The outcomes

Almost all the people interviewed considered the project to be a success. Many peoplewho were involved in the process in various ways shared their enthusiasm. The projectinitiated many activities, created a great deal of awareness and changed the behaviourof people who used the area because they gained more awareness of how theiractivities influenced specific species or habitats. These efforts are likely to lead tobetter protection, which is shown, for example, in a study taken of turnstones. Thisstudy shows that the level of disturbance to turnstones by coastal activities wasreduced by as much as 40% since the beginning of the project (Webb 2004).

From the interviews it could be derived that people had low expectations in thebeginning towards the project and the process. This was especially due to it beingdifficult to predict the outcomes of the process. Later on the project produced moreresults than expected, especially activities such as beach excursions and all types ofvoluntary codes that aimed at limiting disturbance of the area, and this made peoplevery happy.

The open and flexible approach of the project was the result of a good balancebetween a hierarchical and a bottom-up approach. The local approach, with itsflexibility towards incorporating other ideas and interests, resulted in the activeinvolvement of a wide variety of people, while at the same time contracts were usedto clarify responsibilities and agreements.

5. Wieden and Weerribben

5.1. The area

The Wieden and Weerribben are two large nature areas covering a total of 12,600 hain the north-eastern part of the Netherlands. The sites consist of lowland peat,smaller and larger bodies of open water, reed lands, swamp forests and grasslands.This landscape is the result of centuries of peat and reed harvesting. Both areas havebeen designated as Natura 2000 sites because of their value for oligotrophic peat,moor and swamp landscapes and the occurrence of species like bittern and black tern(Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality 2008).

The Wieden and Weerribben are situated in the Province of Overijssel.Approximately 40,000 people live in the vicinity of these two nature areas. Mostof the land is in use as agricultural land, mainly dairy farms. The Wieden andWeerribben are very famous due to their natural beauty, making them popularamong tourists. Each year the area is visited by approximately 1 million people.

5.2. History and political context

At the beginning of the 1990s, discussions were held in the provincial parliamentabout the development of new nature reserves between the Wieden and theWeerribben. This discussion was part of the national debate concerning the NationalEcological Network, which was developed by the Dutch government to connectnature areas in the Netherlands. In 1994, the first draft of the ProvincialDevelopment Perspective on Northwest Overijssel (Gebiedsperspectief Noordwest


Overijssel) was published. This provincial document stated that 3000 ha of a newnature areas should be developed, which meant that 80 to 100 farmers would have toleave to make room them. In the definitive version of the Provincial DevelopmentPerspective this was brought back to 1500 ha, and as compensation the farmsoutside the new nature areas were allowed to develop and grow. In addition, 350 jobswould be created in the recreational sector (Metz 1998). Immediately after thecompletion of the Perspective it became clear that both the Wieden and theWeerribben would be designated as Natura 2000 sites. At first, this was not a sourceof concern. One of the interviewees stated:

some farmers were worried and went to the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and FoodSafety. At the Ministry an officer told them not to worry. He suggested just replacingsome nature areas if there was a big problem.

After a while, opinions about the consequences of the designation changed. Currentlythere is a great deal of discussion about the borders of the Natura 2000 sites andabout the consequences for activities in and around the sites. In 2005, the Dutchnational government decided to make the formulation of management plans for allNatura 2000 sites obligatory (Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality 2006,Beunen and Van Ark 2007). The task to develop these plans in close co-operationwith owners, users and stakeholders was delegated to the provincial authorities. TheProvince of Overijssel decided to start immediately the management plans for theWieden-Weerribben area because it wanted to provide clarity as soon as possible.

5.3. The project

The Province of Overijssel started the project as a pilot project for Natura 2000 inthe Netherlands. The main reason to begin the project was to provide clarity aboutthe consequences of designation as a Natura 2000 site for the social and economicactivities in and around both sites. The uncertainties about the consequences neededto be clarified. Because the Wieden-Weerribben was a pilot project the Province wasvery cautious and although they could develop their own approach, they followedthe guidelines of the Ministry. The project began with the formation of a workgroupin March 2006. This workgroup consisted of representatives from the two natureconservation organisations that managed the sites, the local and regional authorities,the Land Allocation Committee and the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and FoodSafety with the Province as chair. In August 2007, representatives from theagricultural sector, reed growers and the association of tourism entrepreneurs wereadded to the workgroup. The people who lived, worked and used the area forrecreation, i.e. the residents, farmers and visitors at both sites, were not involved inthe process apart from two information presentations.

The workgroup faced uncertainties about how to organise the process, how todetermine the exact borders of the Natura 2000 sites, how to deal with ammoniadeposition and how to manage the water tables and water quality in and around thesites. The main issues for the management of the area were the quality of the waterand the water tables. To protect the nature values, the deposition of ammonia had tobe reduced. This problem was complex, however, because deposition was caused byammonia emissions from farms, industry and traffic elsewhere.

The workgroup began collecting information, which proved to be problematicand very time consuming. During this period there was a great deal of discussion and


disagreement about the available information. One of the interviewees said:‘‘everybody stood in the trenches’’. Some members of the workgroup felt thatinformation collection was something that should not be the responsibility of theworkgroup: ‘‘information collection in the beginning should be done by experts,not by workgroup members. This would ensure that objective information couldbe provided’’. These discussions took a long time, and another consequence wasthat people questioned the information found by other workgroup members. Oneof the interviewees even stated: ‘‘Information brought in by us was questioned.This made us angry and it caused disappointment amongst our councilmembers’’. In this situation, there were negative expectations about the collectedinformation.

At a national level, there was a great deal of discussion about generic policies fordealing with ammonia emissions caused by farms. The workgroup was waiting forthe national government to make a decision on this issue. This debate caused a greatdeal of uncertainty among farmers everywhere in the Netherlands. The workgroupwaited a long time for the national government to formulate new policies forammonia reduction. After a long discussion, the courts rejected these policies, andgradually everyone became aware that such problems should be dealt with at the sitelevel. The uncertainties about these national policies, the possible consequences foragricultural activities around Natura 2000 sites and the formulation of managementplans led to further delays and more uncertainty for everyone involved in the project.This was mentioned by all the interviewees and they all admitted that this causeduncertainties for the future process.

During the process, it became clear that specific decisions were requiredregarding the borders of the sites, survey data, ammonia regulations and theinfluence of the water quality on peat growth. The work group was not allowed tomake these decisions, and therefore a steering committee was formed in whichrepresentatives of the various authorities took part, creating a process structurewhich is used a lot in the Netherlands. At that time the project group made someagreements about the definite borders and about the reference date, because ‘‘theMinistry could not give any clear information about these issues’’, reported one ofthe interviewees.

Another significant issue that the workgroup had to deal with was financing. Atthe time of the interviews it was still not clear if there was enough money to financethe measures proposed in the management plan. According to one of the workgroupmembers:

We are now developing a management plan with affordable measures, we have to waitand see if the measures proposed in the management plan are found sufficient by theMinistry, otherwise we can start all over again.

This uncertainty about the expectations of the Ministry towards the managementplan and management measures was a big risk for the workgroup at the time of theinterviews.

Discussions about the management plan always took place in the workgroupmeetings. In between the meetings there was hardly any contact about the projectexcept with the project leader. Most interviewees said that there was no reason tohave contact in between because everything was discussed in the meetings. One of theinterviewees stated: ‘‘the project is taking so long, it does not make sense anymore tomeet in-between’’.


5.4. The outcomes

The focus of the project was mainly on the formulation of a management plan with asmall group of stakeholders. In 2010 this document had been nearly completed. Themanagement plan acknowledged that nature values in both sites depend onmanagement by farmers and reed growers and stated that the designation as aNatura 2000 site has almost no consequences for the present social and economicactivities (Provincie Overijssel 2008). In a few cases an activity can only continue if itmeets specific requirements.

The management plan was becoming more concrete during the time theinterviews were taking place but no one knew how expensive the actual managementprogramme would ultimately be. In addition, it was not clear who would pay for themanagement programme. The Water Management Board (Waterschap) andmunicipality had already admitted lacking any additional funds to enable themanagement programme to realise the Natura 2000 objectives.

This means that the final result of the workgroup might be different from whatwas expected by the Ministry and provincial authority. There is a serious risk thatthe management measures will not be sufficient to realise the nature goals. As one ofthe interviewees commented:

well if the Ministry wants more, then they will have to pay. But it does make me wonderwhat will be left of all the good intentions at the beginning regarding Natura 2000. If theplan is toned down, I question whether Natura 2000 is still what we need.

Several interviewees stated that local people, mainly farmers, were unhappy with thedelays in the project and that they were starting to lose trust in the project and thegovernment. Their mistrust was amplified because the project team chose to providevery little information about the protected sites or about Natura 2000 in general tothe people living and working in and near the nature sites. This lack of informationcaused a great deal of speculation. As a consequence, the farmers and otherinhabitants started asking the municipalities and the province for more information.However, the workgroup did not want to provide any information because they werealso uncertain about the consequences of Natura 2000. The result was that ‘‘farmersstill live in an uncertain situation, which creates mistrust towards the governmentand the management plan’’. Workgroup members and other groups of inhabitantslost their trust in the Ministry, the province and Natura 2000. This was due to thelack of information provided about Natura 2000, the uncertainties that arose fromthe recent history of the Provincial Development Perspective, and the inflexibility ofthe responsible authorities to deal with questions from the public.

The current situation can be characterised as a deliberative quicksand. Moststakeholders have become very reluctant to accept new ideas and plans, are primarilydefending their own stakes and are suspicious or even showing distrust of theinvolved governments. It is therefore difficult to continue deliberation and reachagreement and it is very likely that some of the actors will meet each other in courtbecause they disagree about the final designation of the Natura 2000 site or aboutpermissions for specific activities.

6. Discussing the two cases

The Wieden-Weerribben and the Thanet Coast are both examples of Natura 2000sites where many social and economic activities take place. Several activities possibly


have a severe impact on the management objectives. At the same time the naturalbeauty of these areas is an important reason why some of these activities take placethere. The activities are therefore interrelated. Moreover, the people and organisa-tions that are involved with these activities are interconnected and depend on eachother to achieve their own objectives. The reasons for beginning both projects werealso similar. In both areas the responsible authority (Natural England in the UK andthe Province of Overijssel in the Netherlands) initiated the planning process becausethey wanted to provide clarity about the consequences that designation as a Natura2000 site would have for social and economic activities. Both cases faced a negativeattitude at the start. In Thanet the district and different organisations such asthe municipality and the fisheries association were against the designation and inthe Wieden-Weerribben the project inherited the history of former naturedevelopment plans.

6.1. Organising the start

For our study we examined the ways in which these responsible authorities organisedthe planning processes, how other stakeholders were involved and what theoutcomes of the processes were. The study has shown some differences between thetwo projects. The first difference is the way the process was initiated. In theNetherlands the province retained the lead on the process from the beginning tillthe end while Natural England delegated the co-ordination of the project to a projectteam in the area. The second difference is the number of people who were invited toparticipate in the planning process. In the Thanet Coast project, there was an openinvitation to participate in the process, while in the Wieden-Weerribben project, theprovince decided to limit the workgroup to known local and regional authorities,nature conservation organisations and a few representatives from the agriculturaland recreational sectors who also participated in earlier processes.

Another significant difference was the way in which co-operation was organised.The Thanet Coast project combined formal and professional meetings withworkshops and other informal activities, to which everyone was invited toparticipate. During the project, there was a great deal of attention given to informalcommunication. This emphasis on the combination of formal and informalcommunication contrasts with the situation in the Netherlands. The province ofOverijssel chose to implement Natura 2000 through a hierarchical and fixedapproach. They chose this approach first, because they first wanted to have moreclarity about the consequences of Natura 2000 before informing local inhabitantsand second, because it was a pilot project. In some ways it could be said that the pilotstatus gave the province the feeling that they were restricted to the guidelines of theMinistry concerning the organisation of the process. In general, the professionalinvolvement of the various stakeholders and the limited involvement of localinhabitants in the process influenced the process enormously. This strict approachled to a lack of information being given to the public, who remained uncertain aboutthe consequences of Natura 2000.

Another difference concerns the way in which the responsible authorities dealtwith the uncertainties within the process. The project team of the Thanet Coastproject decided to share these uncertainties with everyone who became involved inthe project. In contrast, the province of Overijssel decided to deal with theuncertainties within a small group of people and to be very cautious about providing


information to the public. This difference was shown in the formal and informal wayinformation about the project was provided. While information about the ThanetCoast project was available on their website, in newspapers and in various types offlyers and booklets, the only tangible information about the Wieden-Weerribbenproject was a general leaflet and the draft Management Plan, which was available onthe Internet site of the province of Overijssel.

Due to the open approach of the Thanet Coast project, it was possible to placethe conservation objectives in a broader context that included other values andinterests, such as the protection of seals and the conflicts between different beachusers. The Management Plan for the Wieden-Weerribben was only about the veryspecific conservation objectives.

6.2. The outcomes

The outcomes of both projects also differed. Whereas most people were veryenthusiastic about the Thanet Coast project, this enthusiasm was absent in theWieden-Weerribben project. In the latter area, many people (mainly farmers) werevery suspicious about the project and about Natura 2000 in general. The enthusiasmthat characterised the Thanet Coast project created a great deal of awareness aboutthe conservation objectives and made people organise various types of activities topromote the sustainable use of the area. There are strong indications that all theseefforts have had a good effect and that over-wintering birds are experiencing lessdisturbance than before. The main outcome of the Wieden-Weerribben project is theManagement Plan, but due to uncertainties about financing it remains questionablewhether all the necessary measures can be taken. The process created a deliberativequicksand in which the tensions and distrust between the stakeholders have made itextremely difficult for the responsible authorities to come up with the requiredsolutions for the management of the Natura 2000 site.

6.3. Back to the start

The cases show that the initial decisions taken by the responsible authoritiesregarding the planning and management of the Natura 2000 at the start of theprocess form the basis for further deliberation between stakeholders. At thebeginning of the planning processes new networks for deliberation and co-operationare formed and the initial choices of the responsible authorities largely influence theevolution of these networks.

Over the years, the Thanet Coast project has become a success. Many people areinvolved in the project and they all share a great enthusiasm, which made it possibleto overcome the negative attitudes at the start. This enthusiasm is also the basis ofthe ongoing success. The enthusiasm is mainly built on the bond people feel with‘their coast’. During the project, the team managed to instigate this common feelingand to create a bond between the people involved. This joint responsibility to takecare of the coast resulted in various types of initiatives. When these initiatives weresuccessful, this increased the trust in the project. The focus of the project was oncreating good relations and trust through informal contacts and the possibilities forsharing ideas. Due to the flexible and open approach, the process took a long time,but resulted in people gaining more faith in the process, the project team and eachother. Voluntary agreements that would help prevent disturbances could be made


because all parties had a positive attitude towards the project. The sharedresponsibilities were an important result of the specific approach that was usedand show that the long-term benefits of such a planning approach outweigh theshort-term difficulties that are often associated with it (Keough and Blahna 2006).

In the Wieden-Weerribben project, the focus was on designing and producing themanagement plan by following the guidelines of the Ministry. The responsibleauthority created this plan in co-operation with other governmental organisationsand representatives from NGOs. Other stakeholders, such as local inhabitants, wereonly informed through information presentations. During the process, several peoplelost trust in the process and in the government, because the uncertainties about thefuture for the inhabitants remained. Due to the growing distrust among farmers andother local inhabitants, it has remained difficult to reach agreement. The manage-ment plan that was written stated that the designation as Natura 20000 has fewconsequences for current activities, including agricultural and tourist activities.Nevertheless, the organisation of a planning process created a great deal ofuncertainty and led to many discussions, conflicts about each other’s roles andresponsibilities and mutual distrust amongst the stakeholders.

The challenges of Natura 2000 relate to both the ecological management of thesites as well as to the organisation of deliberative planning processes in whichdecisions about measures are taken in a new context of European legislation.Participation is often mentioned as an important aspect of these deliberativeplanning processes. Participation comes with some pros and cons, some of whichhave been shown from both cases. The cases specifically show the importance of theinitial choices that responsible authorities take about the organisation of theplanning process and about the possibilities for other stakeholders to participate inthis process. Like many authors have argued before, participation can enhance thepossibilities to gain mutual understanding for the perspectives and aims of otherpeople, strengthen reciprocity and trust and thus enlarge the possibilities to takemeasures and implement policies. Nevertheless, it is also important to realise thatthese participatory processes can also create disappointment, frustration and evenconflicts and therefore complicate the decision-making process.

6.4. The consequences of initial choices

The governance of Natura 2000 sites includes making choices about the organisationof the planning and decision-making process. This implies making choices aboutwho to involve in what way. These should be conscious choices based upon detailedknowledge of the specific local context, including knowledge about relevantstakeholders, their aims and perspectives and knowledge about previous planningprocesses, taking into account the (common) history, the (new) roles of people andthe expectations of those involved and uninvolved. Furthermore, participation oftenrefers to inclusion in the official decision-making process, but it is important torealise that whether formally involved or not, people can always feel marginalisedand unrecognised and still influence the process.

A new context requires a reorientation of the design of planning processes.Although various authors have argued that stakeholders should be able to developtheir own institutions within these co-operative processes (Ostrom 1990, Rydin andPennington 2000), we have seen that the responsible authorities still take the leadand tend to use familiar designs of planning processes. These authorities make


decisions about the project approach, about the people and organisations involvedand what they do with the ideas and input from all the stakeholders. However, theyalso need to make formal decisions about the outcomes of the project. Therefore,they have specific responsibilities for the management of Natura 2000 sites.

Within planning processes such as Natura 2000 implementation, it is vital that theresponsible authorities are aware of the consequences of interdependence and createan arena in which all actors can enjoy mutual understanding and trust (Hajer andWagenaar 2003). Mutual understanding (but not necessarily consensus) is animportant outcome of a planning process (Ledoux et al. 2000, Innes 2004). Thegovernance of Natura 2000 sites involves a struggle of ideas and interests.Government organisations have the responsibility to facilitate this struggle. Notonly private parties, but also politicians and civil servants need to be involved in theinteractive process from the beginning, because they need to ensure that the rules andthe roles of the interactive process become embedded in the current institutions toavoid conflicts with formal decision-making processes (Edelenbos 2005). Theorganisation of a deliberative planning process is often much more difficult andcomplex than organising a technocratic, top-down planning process (Propper andSteenbeek 2001) and requires a different role and new competencies from theresponsible authorities. The transition to a new style of governance might be easier inone particular context than in another, depending on the current institutional andcultural setting and the freedom local and regional authorities have (or are willing totake) within the framework of contemporary policies. We noticed that the responsibleorganisations in the Thanet Coast were better able to translate European policies intothe local context than the responsible organisations in the Wieden-Weerribben case.The latter were more reliant upon the traditional style of governance and professionalnetworks already in place. This difference can partly be explained by the fact thatNatural England is a free standing agency which does not have to make politicalstatements, whereas the province is governed by an elected council, and as such, moresensitive to the political consequences of the Natura 2000 process.

New forms of governance in which various stakeholders gain more influence andgovernments need to adapt their roles and activities, can be seen as evolutionaryprocesses that show a certain path-dependency in which initial choices about theorganisation of deliberative processes can have large influences. For manygovernmental bodies the organisation of these deliberative processes is a new taskand requires institutional changes. It might therefore be no surprise that thesechanges cause problems in the implementation of policies such as falling back onknown approaches without taking into account new developments. The implemen-tation of Natura 2000 in many EU countries is a good example that shows thedifficulties and the conflicts that might come along and the importance oforganisational networks to deal with new contexts, the difficulties and changes.These processes offer useful cases for future studies towards deliberative planningprocesses from which valuable lessons can be drawn. For example, our study showsthat trust is a key concept that requires much more attention in studies towardsspatial planning and natural resource governance.

7. Conclusions

The planning and management of Natura 2000 sites and the ways in which ecologicalobjectives are related to social and economic activities will, in the long term,


determine the success of European nature conservation policies. Therefore, it isimportant to learn from current experiences in the regions where people are dealingwith these issues. We have made a detailed study of the planning processes at twoNatura 2000 sites in two member states. Our focus was on how the responsibleauthorities organised the planning and decision-making processes, and how theyinvolved other parties in these processes. Although both planning projects took placein different institutional and cultural settings, we can learn some important lessons,in both a positive as well as a negative sense, from the two case studies.

Our study showed that a common history or a negative environment can have amajor influence on the start of the process. However, it is mainly the way in which theauthorities respond to this and organise the planning and decision-making processconcerning a Natura 2000 site that leads to a certain path-dependency that has animportant influence on the support for management measures in and near the site.The study showed that in a situation in which the management of the Natura 2000 sitedepends on many different stakeholders, a planning process that emphasisesinteraction and co-operation seems to offer better possibilities than a more formaland hierarchical planning process. A planning process in which uncertainties,expectations and responsibilities are shared among the participants strengthensawareness of conservation objectives and encourages mutual trust among thestakeholders. These are aspects that are invaluable for the social and ecologicalsuccess of the management of Natura 2000 sites. The responsible authorities shouldbe aware that their initial choices about the organisation of the planning process havea significant influence on the way deliberate networks can evolve. The beginning of aplanning process can create a solid basis for further co-operation and strengthen thepossibilities to develop social capital, trust and reciprocity, but it can also create adeliberative quicksand from which it is difficult to escape and which can lead toongoing discussions and even conflicts between the various stakeholders. Theresponsible authorities should therefore make careful decisions about the design ofthe planning process and why, how and when to involve various other parties.

The awareness for conservation objectives, the shared responsibilities, the jointefforts and mutual understanding and trust among relevant stakeholders form thefoundation for further co-operation between governments, nature conservationorganisations and various other parties involved in the governance of Natura 2000sites. This further co-operation is extremely important, because the management of aNatura 2000 site is something that does not stop once specific measures have beenagreed upon.

Acknowledgements

The authors like to thank two anonymous referees for their useful comments on a previousversion of the paper.

References

Adger, W.N., et al., 2003. Governance for sustainability: towards a ‘thick’ analysis ofenvironmental decision making. Environment and planning A, 35 (6), 1095–1110.

Alphandery, P. and Fortier, A., 2001. Can a territorial policy be based on science alone? Thesystem for creating the Natura 2000 network in France. Sociologia ruralis, 41 (3), 311–328.

Alexander, E.R., 2001. The planner-prince: interdependence, rationalities and post-commu-nicative practice. Planning theory & practice, 2/3, 311–324.

Arnstein, S.R., 1969. A ladder of citizen participation. JAIP, 35 (4), 216–224.


Berry, J.M., Portney, K.E., and Thomson, K., 1993. The rebirth of urban democracy.Washington DC: Brookings Institution.

Beunen, R., 2006. Nature conservation legislation and spatial planning: for better or forworse? Journal of environmental planning and management, 49 (4), 607–621.

Beunen, R. and Van Ark, R.G.H., 2007. De politieke dimensie van Natura 2000. Landschap,24 (1), 13–20.

Beunen, R., Van der Knaap, W.G.M., and Biesbroek, G.R., 2009. Implementation andintegration of EU Environmental Directives. Experiences from the Netherlands. Europeanenvironment, 19 (1), 57–69.

Bevir, M., 2004. Governance and interpretation: what are the implications of postfounda-tionalism? Public administration, 82 (3), 605–625.

Bijlsma, K.M. and Van der Bunt, G.G., 2003. Antecedents of trust in managers: a ‘bottom up’approach. Personal review, 32 (5), 638–664.

Bohman, J., 1996. Public deliberation: pluralism, complexity, and democracy. New Baskerville:MIT Press.

Bouwma, I.M., et al., 2008. Natura 2000 benchmark, a comparative analysis of the discussion onNatura 2000 management issues. WOTNM-Rapport. Wageningen: Wettelijke Onderzoek-staken Natuur and Milieu.

Bryman, A., 2004. Social research methods. Oxford University Press.CEC, 2000. Managing Natura 2000 sites. The provisions of Article 6 of the ‘Habitats’ Directive

92/43/EEC. [online] Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/docs/art6/provision_of_art6_en.pdf [Accessed 1 November 2010].

CEC, 2002. Commission Working Document on Natura 2000. Brussels. [online] Available from:http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/info/pubs/docs/nat2000/2002_faq_en.pdf [Ac-cessed 1 November 2010].

CEC, 2003. Natura 2000 and forests ‘Challenges and opportunities’. Interpretation guide.[online] Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/info/pubs/docs/nat2000/n2kforest_en.pdf [Accessed 1 November 2010].

CEC, 2005. Natura 2000, conservation in partnership. [online] Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/info/pubs/docs/nat2000/conservation_in_partnership.pdf [Accessed 1 November 2010].

De Vaus, D.A., 2002. Research design in social research. London: Sage.DEFRA, 2007. Conserving biodiversity – the UK approach. London: Department for

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.Dryzek, J., 2000. Deliberative democracy and beyond. Liberals, critics, contestations. Oxford

University Press.Edelenbos, J., 2005. Institutional implications of interactive governance: insights from Dutch

practice. Governance: an international journal of policy, administration, and institutions, 18(1), 111–134.

Edelenbos, J. and Klijn, E.H., 2006. Managing stakeholder involvement in decision making: acomparative analysis of six interactive processes in the Netherlands. Journal of publicadministration research and theory, 16 (3), 417–446.

Eisenhardt, K.M., 2009. Building from case study research. The Academy of Managementreview, 14 (4), 532–550.

Elster, J., 1998. Deliberative democracy. Cambridge University Press.Falleth, E., 2006. Setesdal Vesthei-Ryfylkeheiane, Norway: local co-management in a

protected area. In: Y. Rydin and E. Falleth, eds. Networks and institutions in naturalresource management. London: Edward Elgar, 57–73.

Fischer, F., 2009. Democracy and expertise: reorienting policy inquiry. Oxford UniversityPress.

Gibbs, D., While, A., and Jonas, A.E.G., 2007. Governing nature conservation: the EuropeanUnion Habitats Directive and conflict around estuary management. Environment andPlanning A, 39 (2), 339–358.

Goodwin, P., 1998. ‘Hired hands’ or ‘local voice’: understanding and experience of localparticipation in conservation. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 23 (4),481–499.

Hajer, M.A., 2005. Rebuilding Ground Zero. The politics of performance. Planning theory &practice, 6 (4), 445–464.


http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/docs/art6/provision_of_art6_en.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/docs/art6/provision_of_art6_en.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/info/pubs/docs/nat2000/2002_faq_en.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/info/pubs/docs/nat2000/2002_faq_en.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/info/pubs/docs/nat2000/n2kforest_en.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/info/pubs/docs/nat2000/n2kforest_en.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/info/pubs/docs/nat2000/conservation_in_partnership.pdf



Hajer, M.A., 2006. The living institutions of the EU: analysing governance as performance.Perspectives on European politics and society, 7 (1), 41–55.

Hajer, M. and Zonneveld, W., 2000. Spatial planning in the network society – rethinking theprinciples of planning in the Netherlands. European planning studies, 8 (3), 337–355.

Hajer, M.A. and Wagenaar, H., 2003. Introduction. In: M.A. Hajer and H. Wagenaar (Eds.)Deliberative policy analysis. Understanding governance in the network society. CambridgeUniversity Press, 1–30.

Harrison, C.M., Burgess, J., and Clark, J., 1998. Discounted knowledge: farmers’ andresidents’ understanding of nature conservation goals and policies. Journal of environ-mental management, 54 (4), 305–320.

Healey, P., 1997. Collaborative planning: shaping places in fragmented societies. Basingstoke:Macmillan.

Hiedanpaa, J., 2002. European-wide conservation versus local well-being: the reception of theNatura 2000 Reserve Network in Karvia, SW-Finland. Landscape and urban planning, 61(2), 113–123.

Hill, M. and Hupe, P., 2003. The multi-layer problem in implementation research. Publicmanagement review, 5 (4), 471–490.

Hillier, J., 2002. Shadows of power: an allegory of prudence in land-use planning. New York:Routledge.

Innes, J., 2004. Consensus building: clarifications for the critics. Planning theory, 3 (1),5–20.

JNCC (Joint Nature Conservation Committee), 2008. Thanet Coast, site details. [online]Available from: http://jncc.gov.uk/protectedsites/sacselection/sac.asp?EUCode¼UK0013107 [Accessed 1 November 2010].

Jones, P. and Burgess, J., 2005. Building partnership capacity for the collaborativemanagement of marine protected areas in the UK. Journal of environmental management,77 (3), 227–243.

Jordan, A., Wurzel, R.K.W., and Zito, A., 2005. The rise of ‘new’ policy instruments incomparative perspective: has governance eclipsed government? Political studies, 53 (3),477–496.

Keough, H.L. and Blahna, D.J., 2006. Achieving integrative, collaborative ecosystemmanagement. Conservation biology, 20 (5), 1373–1382.

Koppenjan, J.F.M. and Klijn, E.H., 2004. Managing uncertainties in networks: a networkapproach to problem solving and decision making. London: Routledge.

Krott, M., et al., 2000. Voicing interests and concerns: Natura 2000: an ecological network inconflict with people. Forest policy and economics, 1 (3–4), 357–366.

Ledoux, L., et al., 2000. Implementing EU biodiversity policy: UK experiences. Land usepolicy, 17 (4), 257–268.

Metz, T., 1998. Nieuwe Natuur. Reportages over veranderend landschap. Amsterdam: AMBO.Milligan, J., et al., 2009. Nature conservation for sustainable shorelines: lessons from seeking

to involve the public. Land use policy, 26 (2), 203–213.Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality, 2006. Handreiking Beheerplannen Natura

2000 gebieden. The Hague: Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality.Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality, 2008. Aanwijzingsbesluit Natura 2000

gebied Wieden. [online] Available from: http://www.synbiosys.alterra.nl/natura2000/gebiedendatabase.aspx?subj¼n2kandgroep¼5andid¼n2k35 [Accessed 1 November 2010].

Ostermann, O.P., 1998. The need for management of nature conservation sites designatedunder Natura 2000. Journal of applied ecology, 35 (6), 968–973.

Ostrom, E., 1990. Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action.New York: Cambridge University Press.

Pennington, M. and Rydin, Y., 2000. Researching social capital in local environmental policycontexts. Policy & politics, 28 (2), 233–249.

Pierre, J. and Peters, B.G., 2000. Governance, politics and the state. Basingstoke: Macmillan.Pinton, F., 2001. Conservation of biodiversity as a European directive: the challenge for

France. Sociologia ruralis, 41 (3), 329–342.Propper, I. and Steenbeek, D., 2001. De aanpak van interactief beleid: elke situatie is anders.

Bussum: Uitgeverij Coutinho.Provincie Overijssel, 2008. Beheerplan Wieden-Weerribben. Zwolle: Provincie Overijssel.


http://jncc.gov.uk/protectedsites/sacselection/sac.asp?EUCode=UK0013107



http://www.synbiosys.alterra.nl/natura2000/gebiedendatabase.aspx?subj=n2kandgroep=5andid=n2k35





Rauschmayer, F., Van den Hove, S., and Koetz, T., 2008. Participation in EU biodiversitygovernance: how far beyond rhetoric? Environment and planning C: government and policy,27 (1), 42–58.

Rootes, C., 2007. Nature protection organizations in England. Centre for the Study of Socialand Political Movements, Working paper 1/2007. Canterbury: University of Kent.

Rydin, Y. and Falleth, E., 2006. Networks and institutions in natural resource management.London: Edward Elgar.

Rydin, Y. and Pennington, M., 2000. Public participation and local environmental planning:the collective action problem and the potential of social capital. Local Environment, 5 (2),153–169.

Scharpf, W., 1997. Games real actors play. Actor-centred institutionalism in policy research.Oxford: Westview Press.

Scholl, B. and Chilla, T., 2005. Competing policy ideas and the implementation of Europeanenvironmental policy. Discursive constructions of ‘Nature’ and ‘Space’ within the multi-level implementation process of the EU Habitats Directive. 3rd ECPR-conference,Budapest, 8–10 September.

Stoll-Kleemann, S., 2001. Opposition to the designation of protected areas in Germany.Journal of environmental planning and management, 44 (1), 109–128.

Van Ark, R.G.H., 2005. Planning, contract en commitment. Naar een relationeel perspectief opgebiedscontracten in de ruimtelijke planning. Delft: Eburon.

Van Assche, K. and Verschraegen, G., 2008. The limits of planning: Niklas Luhmann’ssystems theory and the analysis of planning and planning ambitions. Planning theory, 7(3), 263–283.

Van den Hove, S., 2006. Between consensus and compromise: acknowledging the negotiationdimension in participatory approaches. Land use policy, 23 (1), 10–17.

Van der Windt, H., 1995. En dan: wat is natuur nog in dit land? Natuurbescherming inNederland 1880–1990. Amsterdam: Boom.

Van Dijk, T. and Beunen, R., 2009. Laws, People and Land Use: A sociological perspective onthe relation between laws and land use. European Planning Studies, 17 (12), 1797–1815.

Webb, K.J., 2004. The effects of human activity on the Turnstone Arenaria interpres within theThanet and Sandwich Bay Special Protection Area (SPA). Final Draft Report. Sandwich:Sandwich Bay Bird Observatory.


the governance of natura 2000 sites: the importance of initial choices in the organisation of...

Documents