Can a Territorial Policy be Based on Science Alone? The System for Creating the Natura 2000 Network in France

Abstract

Decreed in May 1992 by the eec with a view to conserving biodiversity, the Habitats directive envisages, between now and the year 2004, constructing a European ecological network named Natura 2000. The implementation of the network, based firstly on compiling a list of habitats and species that could be recognized as being of Community importance, generated considerable conflict in France, to the extent that the directive was suspended in July 1996. The analysis of the Habitats directive system has taken a two‐fold approach. The procedures first of all correspond to the tools for reaching the goals set out in the Brussels text, in the time allowed and based on scientific criteria. The second dimension refers to an interpretation of the debates and conflicts generated by the application of the directive's conservation measures on the territory. This second dimension in fact would have been difficult to implement were it not for the support of the area administrators, since their involvement was crucial. In this context, we have interpreted the changes in the procedures of the Habitats directive and the role given to negotiations as well as the issues raised by the nature conservation policies that could no longer be restricted to scientific criteria.

Adaptive governance, ecosystem management, and natural capital

“…In numerous cases, implementation of the directive caused conflicts with landowners and users of nature, such as hunters, fishermen, and farmers, who felt excluded from the planning process. Reports from France, Poland, Greece, Germany, and Finland (46,(49)(50)(51)(52) show that the lack of genuine stakeholder participation and the narrow focus on biodiversity protection reduced local acceptance and engagement and caused delays and difficulties in implementation. In some cases, landowners destroyed conservation values of their land to avoid the new enforced layer of protection, and, in Karvia (Finland), landowners went on a hunger strike in protest (52).…”

Stakeholder perceptions in relation to changes in the management of Natura 2000 sites and the causes and consequences of change. : A survey in England, Flanders, France and the Netherlands

“…In several European countries considerable resistance occurred against designation resulting in protests and law suits (Alphandéry and Fortier 2001;Hiedanpaa 2002;Bryan 2012;Beunen et al 2013). Now that the countries are in a phase of management planning it is interesting to see whether stakeholders still perceive Natura 2000 as an impediment to their activities and for the future of the area.…”

Rethinking agri-environmental schemes. A result-oriented approach to the management of species-rich grasslands in France

“…In France, such studies typically refer to the delineation and management of the original Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs) designated under Article 19 of Council Regulation 797/85 in the 1990s (see Alphand ery and Bourliaud 1996 in particular). The Special Zones of Conservation, later designated under the Habitats Directive, generated a second wave of such studies, many of which focused on the new participative procedures that were re-introduced at the end of the 1990s following the numerous conflicts with farmers groups provoked by designatory practices based solely on scientific criteria (Pinton 2001;Alphand ery and Fortier 2001;Pinton et al 2006).…”