2001•Sociologia RuralisOpen access

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

Pierre Alphandéry, Agnès Fortier

Open full text 174 citations

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.

Open-access reader

About this research paper

What this paper is about

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.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 174 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available 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.

Key concepts: Natura 2000, Habitats Directive, Directive, Context (archaeology), Negotiation, Habitat, Dimension (graph theory), Environmental resource management

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Can a Territorial Policy be Based on Science Alone? The System for Creating the Natura 2000 Network in France — Research Paper | ScholarLens