Stakeholder Participation in Natura 2000 Management Program: Case Study of Slovenia

Abstract

The Natura 2000 network, which is one of the largest networks of protected areas in the world, is the core pillar in the European Union’s biodiversity conservation policy. To achieve the national enforcement of Natura 2000 and to overcome implementation problems, effective policy measures are needed, and participation among different stakeholders is required. The aim of this paper was to evaluate the process of formulation of the Natura 2000 Management Program (2015–2020) in Slovenia based on a set of criteria and indicators for the evaluation of a participatory process, and to present the differences between the stakeholders’ evaluations according to their role in the implementation process. For that purpose, stakeholders were divided into two groups—stakeholders from project partner’s institution, and others. The research was done in two steps: First, in-depth semi-structured interviews with 17 representatives of the key stakeholders’ institutions or organizations that were involved in the formulation of the Natura 2000 Management Program were carried out; in the second, a survey with 266 stakeholders involved in the formulation and decision-making process was conducted. Overall, the results show that the participatory process was well organized, independent and fair; however, not all of the requisite conditions for successful participation were fulfilled, as was shown with the sub-criteria of transparency. The only difference between the groups exists in the evaluations of the sub-criteria transparency of the process. The group of stakeholders from the project’s partner institutions were more satisfied with the transparency of the process, as the average value was 3.36, compared to the others where the average value of satisfaction was 2.80. This indicates the need for an improved, novel, and innovative approach that leads to multi-level governance.

Hindrances to Effective Implementation of the Habitats Directive in Italy: Regional Differences in Designating Special Areas of Conservation

“…Hence, the authors have examined (not randomly or systematically, but through a snowball sampling technique) stakeholders' perceptions concerning their participation in the making of MPs, while this work has proposed a systematic assessment of official documents that have recorded such participation. Therefore, further research could bridge the two assessments and combine a systematic survey of stakeholders who took part (in whichever form) in SAC designation processes with the documental analysis here presented, so as to compare stakeholders' perceptions (on which focus, for instance, [31] and [64]), with the official narrative, hence ultimately assessing participation effectiveness.…”

“…The voluntary character envisioned in the directive notwithstanding, ad-hoc plan-making processes (i.e., the definition of management plans containing the required conservation measures) are regarded in several studies as the way forward to mitigate conflicts [26,27] and as the optimal tool to include stakeholders' participation [16,[28][29][30]; management plans have therefore been found to be preferred over stand-alone conservation measures in a number of member states and have been promoted by the EU [25]. Moreover, inclusive plan-making processes are regarded in the literature as a proper counterbalance to the top-down process whereby Natura 2000 sites were identified and designated [31].…”

Evaluation of the Operational Environment Factors of Nature Conservation Policy Implementation: Cases of Selected EU and Non-EU Countries

“…Stakeholder participation, cooperation, and their ability to influence the policy decision-making process are, as identified in numerous studies (e.g., [8,[40][41][42]52]), the key factors for policy implementation success.…”

“…Many previous studies have shown that national implementation of nature conservation policies differs across the EU [7][8][9][22][23][24][25]. Differences in implementation pathways are related to differences in policy culture in each country and consequently policy integration [14,[26][27][28][29], financing of conservation measures and compensation payments [29][30][31][32][33], management practices [34,35], institutional factors [3,13,23,29,[36][37][38], social factors [3,15,[39][40][41][42][43][44][45], and environmental factors [46,47]. In a recent review of studies related to nature conservation, Popescu, et al [48], and Blicharska, Orlikowska, Roberge and Grodzinska-Jurczak [21], concluded that research related to ecological factors prevail, while social, economic, and policy ones are underrepresented.…”

“…Studies focusing on national and sub-national operational environment factors related to nature conservation policies implementation are available in central-eastern European countries and south-eastern European countries, but most studies fail to systematically evaluate the whole operational environment factors related to nature conservation policies implementation [7,12,14,39,40,[49][50][51][52][53]. To fill the above-mentioned gaps, this research aims to develop a framework to analyse the operational environment factors that affected nature conservation policies implementation in selected EU and non-EU member countries.…”