Expansion of Nature Conservation Areas: Problems with Natura 2000 Implementation in Poland?

In spite of widespread support from most member countries’ societies for European Union policy, including support for the sustainable development idea, in many EU countries the levels of acceptance of new environmental protection programmes have been and, in particular in new member states, still are considerably low. The experience of the countries which were the first to implement union directives show that they cannot be effectively applied without widespread public participation. The goal of this study was, using the example of Poland, to assess public acceptance of the expansion of nature conservation in the context of sustainable development principles and to discover whether existing nature governance should be modified when establishing new protected areas. The increase in protected areas in Poland has become a hotbed of numerous conflicts. In spite of the generally favourable attitudes to nature which Polish people generally have, Natura 2000 is perceived as an unnecessary additional conservation tool. Both local authorities and communities residing in the Natura areas think that the programme is a hindrance, rather than a help in the economic development of municipalities or regions, as was initially supposed. This lack of acceptance results from many factors, mainly social, historic and economic. The implications of these findings for current approach to the nature governance in Poland are discussed.

[1]  Luigi Boitani,et al.  Contribution of the Natura 2000 Network to Biodiversity Conservation in Italy , 2007, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[2]  A. Phillips,et al.  Indigenous and traditional peoples and protected areas: principles, guidelines and case studies. , 2000 .

[3]  S. Charbonneau.  Natura 2000 : une opportunité de dialogues à saisir. , 1997 .

[4]  Grazia Borrini,et al.  Indigenous and local communities and protected areas , 2004 .

[5]  Wolff‐Michael Roth,et al.  Community-Level Controversy Over a Natural Resource: Toward a More Democratic Science in Society , 2006 .

[6]  J. Bliss,et al.  Framing Conservation on Private Lands: Conserving Oak in Oregon's Willamette Valley , 2009 .

[7]  D. Theobald,et al.  Assessing the Ecological and Social Benefits of Private Land Conservation in Colorado , 2008, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[8]  Andreas Y. Troumbis,et al.  Questioning the effectiveness of the Natura 2000 Special Areas of Conservation strategy: the case of Crete , 2004 .

[9]  David B. Audretsch,et al.  Entrepreneurship, Growth and Restructuring , 2008 .

[10]  D. McCauley.  Sustainable development and the ‘governance challenge’: the French experience with Natura 2000 , 2008 .

[11]  M. Grodzińska-Jurczak,et al.  Ocena efektow malopolskiego programu konsultacji spolecznych wokol obszarow Natura 2000 , 2010 .

[12]  Adrian Phillips,et al.  Indigenous and Local Communities and Protected Areas , 2004 .

[13]  D. Ludwig,et al.  Ecology, Conservation, and Public Policy , 2001 .

[14]  Ole P Ostermann,et al.  The need for management of nature conservation sites designated under Natura 2000 , 2008 .

[15]  G. Beaufoy.  The EU Habitats Directive in Spain: can it contribute effectively to the conservation of extensive agro‐ecosystems? , 2008 .

[16]  M. Krott,et al.  VOicing Interests and ConcErns: NATURA 2000: an ecological network in conflict with people. , 2000 .

[17]  C. Folke,et al.  The problem of fit between ecosystems and institutions , 2007 .

[18]  Other,et al.  The AARHUS Convention: an implementation guide , 2000 .

[19]  Alicia Castillo,et al.  Social Participation in Conservation Efforts: A Case Study of a Biosphere Reserve on Private Lands in Mexico , 2007 .

[20]  M. Lubell,et al.  Ecological Development and Global Climate Change: A Cross-National Study of Kyoto Protocol Ratification , 2007 .

[21]  Connie Lewis,et al.  Managing conflicts in protected areas , 1996 .

[22]  S. Bell,et al.  What counts? Volunteers and their organisations in the recording and monitoring of biodiversity , 2008, Biodiversity and Conservation.

[23]  M. S. Skeffington,et al.  The Irish agri-environment: How turlough users and non-users view converging EU agendas of Natura 2000 and CAP , 2007 .

[24]  R. Chuenpagdee,et al.  Progressing Toward Comanagement Through Participatory Research , 2004 .

[25]  S. Stoll-Kleemann.  BARRIERS TO NATURE CONSERVATION IN GERMANY: A MODEL EXPLAINING OPPOSITION TO PROTECTED AREAS , 2001 .

[26]  A. Fortier,et al.  Can a Territorial Policy be Based on Science Alone? The System for Creating the Natura 2000 Network in France , 2001 .

[27]  Juliette Young,et al.  Towards sustainable land use: identifying and managing the conflicts between human activities and biodiversity conservation in Europe , 2005, Biodiversity & Conservation.

[28]  John Harwood,et al.  Risk assessment and decision analysis in conservation , 2000 .

[29]  Juan Palerm,et al.  The Habitats Directive as an instrument to achieve sustainability? An analysis through the case of the Rotterdam Mainport Development Project , 2006 .

[30]  A. Phillips,et al.  Indigenous and traditional peoples and protected areas , 2000 .

[31]  Joe Peters.  Understanding Conflicts between People and Parks at Ranomafana, Madagascar , 1999 .

[32]  L. Slavíková,et al.  From government to governance for biodiversity: the perspective of central and Eastern European transition countries , 2009 .

[33]  Mark W Schwartz,et al.  How Conservation Scientists Can Help Develop Social Capital for Biodiversity , 2006, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[34]  T. Christophersen,et al.  The influence of non-governmental organisations on the creation of Natura 2000 during the European Policy process , 2002 .

[35]  A. Gouldson,et al.  Interplay of actors, scales, frameworks and regimes in the governance of biodiversity , 2009 .

[36]  John D. Pantis,et al.  Conceptual gaps in the national strategy for the implementation of the European Natura 2000 conservation policy in Greece , 2009 .

[37]  ‘Sustainable development’ as a criterion for the interpretation of Article 6 of the Habitats Directive , 2006 .

[38]  J. Hiedanpää.  European-wide conservation versus local well-being: the reception of the Natura 2000 Reserve Network in Karvia, SW-Finland , 2002 .

[39]  D. Olivieri.  Environmental Management , 2006 .

[40]  C. Simmons,et al.  Erratum: The Local Articulation of Policy Conflict: Land Use, Environment, and Amerindian Rights in Eastern Amazonia , 2002 .

[41]  Todd Norton,et al.  Communication and Public Participation in Environmental Decision Making , 2005 .

[42]  S. Bell,et al.  Who is responsible for Natura 2000 in Poland? ? a potential role of NGOs in establishing the programme , 2007 .

[43]  Louis Lebel,et al.  Guest Editorial, part of a Special Feature on Scale and Cross-scale Dynamics Scale and Cross-Scale Dynamics: Governance and Information in a Multilevel World , 2006 .

[44]  F. Dickinson,et al.  Community Member Viewpoints on the Ría Celestún Biosphere Reserve, Yucatan, Mexico: Suggestions for Improving the Community/Natural Protected Area Relationship , 2008 .

[45]  Raoul Beunen.  European nature conservation legislation and spatial planning: For better or for worse? , 2006 .

[46]  Seminar on Transboundary Management of Large Carnivore Populations , 2005 .

[47]  K. Soma,et al.  Framing participation with multicriterion evaluations to support the management of complex environmental issues , 2010 .