Item does not contain fulltext6th European Conference on Ecological Restoration, 8 september 200

Keulartz, F.W.J.

English

NARCIS 

Legitimacy for ecological restoration in a multilevel governance context - Chances and challenges

Radboud Repository

PDF hosted at the Radboud Repository of the Radboud University
Nijmegen
 
 
 
 
The following full text is a publisher's version.
 
 
For additional information about this publication click this link.
http://hdl.handle.net/2066/72082
 
 
 
Please be advised that this information was generated on 2020-09-09 and may be subject to
change.
See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254876289
Legitimacy for ecological restoration in a multilevel governance context -
Chances and challenges
Article  in  Tetrahedron · January 2008
Source: OAI
CITATIONS
0
READS
35
1 author:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
At the moment I'm working on (an overview of) re-wilding; on a reassessment of Bryan Norton's covenvergence hypothesis (and the reality of polarization) and on an
ethics of inter- and intraspecific harms (among other things) View project
New Visions of Nature View project
Jozef Keulartz
Wageningen University & Research
240 PUBLICATIONS   1,423 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Jozef Keulartz on 03 June 2015.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
6th European Conference on Ecological Restoration Ghent, Belgium, 8-12/09/2008 
 
1 
Legitimacy for Ecological Restoration in a Multilevel Governance 
Context - Changes and Challenges 
 
Jozef Keulartz 
Department of Applied Philosophy; Wageningen University & Research Centre (WUR); P.O. Box 8130 
6700 EW Wageningen, The Netherlands; jozef.keulartz@wur.nl 
Abstract: The implementation of Natura 2000 has met with considerable resistance from farmers, fishermen, 
foresters and other local residents in most EU member states. In response to the rural protest the majority of 
governments gradually abandoned their centralist, top-down approach and increasingly switched towards 
methods of participatory and interactive policy making. However, the results of the more participatory and 
interactive modes of policy-making are far from clear. Some welcome this tendency to incorporate the 
interests of all stakeholders and the attendant integration of nature objectives in other policy fields, while 
others lament the ‘dilution’ of the original nature goals, in the sense that less hectares will be designated as 
nature areas, and that the type of nature to be realised will shift from deeper to lighter shades of green. The 
tendency toward new forms of governance is not only questionable with respect to the effectiveness of nature 
policy but also with respect to its legitimacy. While some applaud this tendency as a triumph of local 
democracy, others fear the emergence of neo-corporatist politics and the attendant formation of power blocs 
of special interest groups and social movements that assert themselves as defenders of the public interest 
without a clear democratic mandate. What are the most important stumbling blocks for successful nature 
conservation policy at the moment and how can these be overcome? 
Keywords: biodiversity policy, increasing public support and participation 
Introduction 
Nature 2000, which encompasses both the Habitats and Birds Directives, is the most 
important legal framework in the field of nature conservation in Europe. These 
directives are legally binding texts that require the individual member states to translate 
them into national legislation. If the member state fails to pass the required national 
legislation, or if the national legislation does not adequately comply with the 
requirements of the directive, the European Commission can initiate legal action 
through the European Court of Justice (ECJ). 
Although significant successes have been achieved, reflecting the largely uncontested 
nature of the overall goals of Natura 2000, we can, nevertheless, observe increasing 
implementation problems in the different EU member states. The difficulties and delays 
that have beset implementation in the ‘old’ 15 EU member states (i.e. states granted EU 
membership before May 2004) have resulted in several member states – including 
Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, and the Netherlands – being 
taken before the ECJ by the European Commission for failure to submit lists of 
designated sites in accordance with the Habitats Directive.  
The 1992 habitats directive was adopted very much in a top down fashion with 
relatively little consultation of stakeholders and policy actors on the ground who have to 
implement the Natura 2000 measures.  But these low levels of consultation and 
representation triggered high levels of resistance. In response, member states have 
increasingly resorted to more participatory forms of decision-making. Public 
consultation, interactive governance, and deliberative democracy are some of the key 
models that are currently being used in many member states to overcome opposition, 
enhance the legitimacy of policy outcomes, increase the quality of decision-making and 
facilitate implementation. However, whether these new modes of governance will be 
able to reduce the implementation deficit in nature protection policy remains to be seen. 
Towards a sustainable future for European ecosystems – Providing restoration guidelines for 
Natura 2000 habitats and species 
 2 
 
 
Problems: output deficiency and democratic deficit 
First, the inclusion of a wide range of stakeholders in the policy-making process is 
usually costly and time-consuming. It therefore may delay the urgently needed adoption 
of policy measures such as protection measures for species which are threatened by 
extinction. 
Second, the shift from a top-down to a bottom-up approach everywhere in Europe 
seems to go hand in hand with a ‘dilution’ of the original nature goals, quantitatively (in 
terms of hectares) as well as qualitatively (from deeper to lighter shades of green). For 
instance, In Poland, the preliminary list of Natura 2000 areas covered about 20 per cent 
of the country’s area. However, due to severe criticisms of the designation process by 
local authorities, foresters and water management institutions, the final national list, 
prepared for submission to the European Commission, was reduced to about half of its 
original size. Another example, in France the total area of sites proposed to the EU 
dropped from the initial figure of 13 per cent in 1996 to 7 per cent at the end of 2002.  
Third, the democratic quality of the consultation process with local stakeholders is 
questionable. The consultation process is about bargaining rather than arguing. It falls 
severely short of the criterion of inclusiveness because the fate of nature and 
biodiversity is actually placed in the hands of that 10 per cent of the population who 
happen to live in the countryside. Too much stress on interactive policy will make 
politicians and policy-makers hostage to local interests at the expense of broader 
interests, in particular, the interests of future generations in a healthy and beautiful 
natural environment. 
6th European Conference on Ecological Restoration Ghent, Belgium, 8-12/09/2008 
 
3 
Conflicting interests and ideas 
These problems are partly caused and partly aggravated by conflicting member state 
interests and conflicting social interests. For instance, nature protection measures for 
threatened species may trigger unintended negative consequences for other species 
and/or legitimate societal interests such as fishing or farming. This can be illustrated by 
the case of the great cormorant. Since 1979, when the EC Birds Directive was enacted, 
cormorant numbers have increased fairly dramatically. This very success of 
conservation policy poses a threat to certain fish species and led to conflicts with fishers 
and anglers organisations.  
Nature management conflicts are not only deepened by the different and often diverging 
interests of member states and stakeholders but also by the different ideas about the 
most appropriate nature protection measures. The various stakeholders have different 
perceptions or visions of nature. Farmers and foresters generally have a functional 
vision of nature, whereas nature conservationists sometimes have an arcadian vision and 
sometimes a wilderness vision of nature. The functional vision considers nature 
primarily in terms of its value to humanity, focusing on such aspects as timber 
production, fishery yields and opportunities for recreation. In contrast, proponents of the 
wilderness vision particularly value nature in its unspoiled state, characterized by 
authentic species and natural constitutive processes such as erosion and sedimentation, 
dispersion, and predation. The utilization of nature is only acceptable if the effects are 
negligible. The arcadian vision takes more of an intermediary position. It focuses on 
semi-natural and extensively used cultural landscapes where human impact is 
considered to be positive when it contributes to biodiversity and the landscape. Its 
proponents stress the cooperation between humanity and nature and often refer to 
historical elements, traditional knowledge of land management, and both extensive and 
small-scale utilization practices.  
Nature management conflicts can also be aggravated by differences in the kind of 
knowledge that the various stakeholders have. EU environmental policy has heavily 
relied on scientific knowledge during the agenda setting and decision-making phases. 
The purely scientific legitimation underlying Natura 2000 has proven to be both a 
strength and a weakness. To its benefit, Natura 2000 can claim strong support from 
ecological experts in other supranational and national conservation organizations. 
However, the scientific legitimation of Natura 2000 is also a source of weakness 
because the scientific ecological concepts underlying the Natura 2000 network seem to 
invite a technocratic, top-down mode of policy-making that is increasingly being 
rejected by local constituencies as too insensitive to local interests, too paternalistic for 
modern tastes and too elitist for modern democracies. Moreover, scientific knowledge 
may not pull policy makers in the same direction as local knowledge that can play an 
important role in the bottom up management of nature protection sites. Local traditions 
and conservation practices have made important contributions towards the conservation 
of nature protection sites such as the Bergö-Malax Outer Archipelago in Finland and the 
North Yorkshire Moors in the United Kingdom. 
Towards a sustainable future for European ecosystems – Providing restoration guidelines for 
Natura 2000 habitats and species 
 4 
 
Boundary-work and the need to re-establish trust 
Until now the introduction of more participatory and interactive modes of policy-
making has not resulted in a significant reduction of the implementation deficit with 
respect to Natura 2000. A large number of local actors in many member states have 
generally remained suspicious of wide consultation efforts by the EU and/or national 
governments about Natura 2000 measures during the implementation phase because 
they were not consulted during the decision-making phase, i.e. when the birds and 
habitats directive were adopted. It usually will not be easy to establish a strong notion of 
trust during a post-decision phase. 
To re-establish a high degree of trust needed to facilitate the implementation of nature 
protection policy measures and to overcome the aforementioned problems and conflicts 
we need to invest in ‘boundary-work’, that is: in constructive efforts to support 
communication and cooperation across the borders between communities with different 
interests and ideas.  
This requires what Schön and Rein (1994, 207) have called ‘double vision’: “the ability 
to act from a frame while cultivating awareness of alternative frames”. We should learn 
to ‘squint’ so to speak in order to see things from different angels simultaneously. As 
soon as people become aware that they use different frames their diagnoses and 
prescriptions will lose much of their obviousness. Such a critical reflection can bring 
people together again to discuss their differences. Awareness of and sensitivity to 
differences are crucial if we want to foster and facilitate collaborative conflict resolution 
and integrative problem solving to prevent further degradation of our natural resources. 
 
References  
Drenthen, M., Keulartz, J. & Proctor, J. (fortcoming). New Visions of Nature. Compexity and Authenticity. 
Springer. 
Keulartz, J. & Leistra, G. (2008). Legitimacy in European Nature Conservation Policy. Case Stduies in 
Multilevel Governance. Springer. 
Keulartz, J., Windt, H. v.d. & Swart J. (2004). Concepts of Nature as Communicative Devices. The Case of 
Dutch Nature Policy. Environmental Values 13 (1), 81-99. 
Swart, J. Windt, H. v.d. & Keulartz, J. (2001). Valuation of Nature in Conservation and Restoration.  
Restoration Ecology 9 (2), 230-238. 
 
 
View publication stats


https://repository.ubn.ru.nl/bitstream/2066/72082/1/72082.pdf

Legitimacy for ecological restoration in a multilevel governance context - Chances and challenges

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

NARCIS

Radboud Repository