I was curious to learn about this initiative after having read Carr III’s comments about the relative effectiveness of the project. In framing it as sort of a model for Central America’s struggles in environmental protection, Carr explained how the EU had used “aggressive conservation” tactics and the concept of an “eminent domain” to “already encompass 15% of the land surface of Europe” (Carr III 38). Your blog responds in two ways to this appraisal– it seems like the case studies you present provide a very positive view about the possibilities of Natura 2000, whereas your analysis discusses the troublesome political and administrative discrepancies between member states. Therefore, I wonder how your assessment of Natura 2000 compares with that of Carr III. To get a better understanding of this, I would have liked to see a case study that highlighted these management struggles, rather than just looking at three successful projects. I think your analysis of case studies was extremely unique and useful as compared to other blogs, yet I wish there had been more diversity in their success rates.
Also, your analysis concludes with the confidence that effective “legislature and practice” could resolve these barriers to progress. I would have liked to see what kinds of legislation you feel would improve the situation. It seems as though administrative issues among member states is at the heart of the problem, according to your assessment, so I wonder how layering on more policy would resolve the situation.
In the opportunities section, you suggest creating a biological corridor within the Natura 2000 project space. As I am unfamiliar with the biological sites in Europe, where would that corridor be constructed? And what would the advantage be in creating a corridor rather than just sticking to these individual projects?As Finley-Brook investigates in her work on the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor, such corridors can “contribute to the intensification of uneven development” because of the scattered focus on “biodiversity hotspots” (Finley-Brook 101). With all of the human development across the continent, I imagine that Europe indeed does have biodiversity hotspots. For a system that already seems to struggle with effective implementation and administration (according to your analysis), I’m uncertain if a corridor would improve these issues.
Hey, Natura 2000 bloggers!
I enjoyed exploring around your blog and reading into the different case studies Natura 2000 has organized. Once the program improves their communication and regulate national laws among its members, I'm sure we'll be hearing many success stories.
You mention in your opening page that the local level involvement may be creating more harm than good, ecologically and economically. What leads you to this conclusion? Have there been any complaints among members? What is the relationship between the amount of money spent on the local projects versus the ecological improvements and social sacrifices? I was also wondering if Natura 2000 had annual or even semiannual meetings to discuss the future of the program in which all members were present. If they do have these meetings with representatives from every member, communication between them should improve. I was also wondering what your all thought about enforcing laws in these protected areas. You mention that only warnings have been given and no real serious action has been taken to those areas that disregard some of the conservation guidelines. If national laws were enforced, do you think that would increase each member's efforts for progress? Or do you think this would only frustrate them and cause them to retract?
Overall, I thought you did a thorough job analyzing this particular organization and I'm interested to see how Natura 2000 progress in the future.
While the analysis and Research Findings are both well-laid out and thoughtfully done, when moving directly from one to another, I found myself seeing something of a “gap” in the two. The three case studies featured in “Research Findings” the Netherlands, Slovenia, and Scotland. However, when it came to analyzing ongoing and potential problems under “Analysis,” we seemed to be dealing with different countries.
Sweden and Germany are given as examples of countries who respectively approve and disapprove of the Natura 2000 program. I can see the advantages of including a broad range of the EU countries in this blog, but it could also be more effective if one of the three examples given can be taken into the SWOT Analysis, possibly showing what, if any portion of the program in question, the German dissenters would object to. In this way, the disconnect between case studies and problems can be closed.
Another question is one that has been posed before, but I will briefly bring it up again as well; where are the local spheres of influence doing more harm than good? Most of the details given in your three case studies cast a positive light on the Natura 2000 program; if this problem is to be highlighted in Analysis, addressing it earlier on in case studies would be a good way of linking the two together and address the problem in a holistic manner.
I thought your blog was very informative regarding the Natura 2000 project. I especially enjoyed the "Research Findings" page and its exploration of three specific projects under the direction of the Natura 2000 program. Furthermore, I thought your organization of that page into background, objectives, and results was very effective in guiding the reader through your discussion of the different issues. I do have a couple suggestions, however, that I think would strengthen your blog. First, what is the organization/structure of Natura 2000 and how does it run? I think a discussion of the power relations among states within the project, including a look into the decision-making process, would provide very useful information to help explain the problems described in the "Analysis" section of the blog (including how and why all states have not implemented Natura 2000 policies). Perhaps on the "Background" page, there could have been a more in-depth look into the creation of Natura 2000. Who were the main proponents for the project and what compromises were made in its formation? This information would definitely have helped strengthen the blog. Second, at no point in the blog is there a definitive explanation of "scale" or "challenges to regional autonomy", two consistent themes throughout the blog. Including a discussion on issues dealt by Finley-Brook and Offen's Bounding the Commons: Land Demarcation in Northeastern Nicaragua or Perreault's Making Space: Community Organization, Agrarian Change, and the Politics of Scale in the Ecuadorian Amazon would have helped to define these important terms. It is important to provide a clear stance when assessing a project such as the Natura 2000 project and how its achievements compare with your points of evaluation.
Hi Natura 2000 bloggers!
I really like your research findings page with the case studies. It was a very effective, clear way to display how Natura 2000 has functioned well as an environmental action organization in arguably the most environmentally conscious region of the world.
One thing I wish you had developed a bit more in your blog was the reaction to the projects at the local level. On the introduction page, you mention that there are local questions as to whether some Natura 2000 programs cause more harm than good, but do not seem to incorporate this issue into your analysis of the project. Does Natura 2000 take into consideration the impact on local populations throughout its projects? Are people displaced? Are people not compensated? Does it alter human migration or activity? Thomas Perreault's work would have been useful with his discussion of the impact of scale on indigenous organizations in the Ecuadorian Amazon. Would Natura 2000 be more effective and have a better reputation locally if they worked more with the local populations to lessen any negative effects?
Hey Bloggers,
Is Nature 2000 an opportunity for or an obstacle to development? I believe that issues from Natura 2000 are issues that the European Union has in general. According to Sicken, some of the major weaknesses that the EU faces are the lack of cohesiveness when it comes to decision-making, debates concerning its enlargement, and different degrees of integration among member-states. Since most new member states have "transitional market economies," implementing Natura 2000 might not be a priority. This leads me to believe that these new members might view Natura 2000 as an obstacle to development.
The other issue is that, as you point out, states such as Germany view the initiative as having a top down approach which ultimately slows down progress. As one of the members in the Introductory video states, "it often happens that local communities are the last to find out about the protected areas which are located within their territory." I find this fascinating. Ironically, this reminds of the notion of "paper parks" mentioned in Carr’s article. Even though Carr is a strong advocate of Natura 2000, it seems that the initiative exhibits disconnects between the regional and the local. Your SWOT analysis states these weaknesses. Here, we are reminded of Perreault’s notion of ‘spacial scale’ and how it "provides mechanism for oppression and control." Numerous people in the video stated that the needs of the local people were not met. I would imagine that these people feel some degree of oppression. For further research, I would encourage you to read about people who are affected negatively by Natura 2000.
When looking at the theoretical aspect, I would suggest looking at Foucault’s "postulate that the production of knowledge and the exercise of power are intimately intertwined," as quoted by Sletto. I believe that some of Natura 2000’s shortcomings will provide for a good case study concerning geopolitics. Natura 2000’s major strength and, what Carr admires the most, is its fundamental understanding of the issue – it is about protecting species and habitat. Nevertheless, issues arise from the lack of local knowledge about the projects. A more comprehensive analysis on these issues would further enhance the blog.
I enjoyed your blog and the insights that I received from it.
Hey Bloggers,
Is Nature 2000 an opportunity for or an obstacle to development? I believe that issues from Natura 2000 are issues that the European Union has in general. According to Dicken, some of the major weaknesses that the EU faces are the lack of cohesiveness when it comes to decision-making, debates concerning its enlargement, and different degrees of integration among member-states. Since most new member states have "transitional market economies," implementing Natura 2000 might not be a priority. This leads me to believe that these new members might view Natura 2000 as an obstacle to development.
The other issue is that, as you point out, states such as Germany view the initiative as having a top down approach which ultimately slows down progress. As one of the members in the Introductory video states, "it often happens that local communities are the last to find out about the protected areas which are located within their territory." I find this fascinating. Ironically, this reminds of the notion of "paper parks" mentioned in Carr’s article. Even though Carr is a strong advocate of Natura 2000, it seems that the initiative exhibits disconnects between the regional and the local. Your SWOT analysis states these weaknesses. Here, we are reminded of Perreault’s notion of ‘spacial scale’ and how it "provides mechanism for oppression and control." Numerous people in the video stated that the needs of the local people were not met. I would imagine that these people feel some degree of oppression. For further research, I would encourage you to read about people who are affected negatively by Natura 2000.
When looking at the theoretical aspect, I would suggest looking at Foucault’s "postulate that the production of knowledge and the exercise of power are intimately intertwined," as quoted by Sletto. I believe that some of Natura 2000’s shortcomings will provide for a good case study concerning geopolitics. Natura 2000’s major strength and, what Carr admires the most, is its fundamental understanding of the issue – it is about protecting species and habitat. Nevertheless, issues arise from the lack of local knowledge about the projects. A more comprehensive analysis on these issues would further enhance the blog.
I enjoyed your blog and the insights that I received from it.
Hey NATURA 2000 bloggers
I think this blog was well-formatted, and one of the best aspects of it was that they approached such an expansive program by breaking it down and choosing three case studies to focus on. However, it may have been helpful to instead of choosing three instances that appeared to be relative success, to include atleast one program that had significant difficulties, to get a more well-rounded and thorough analysis of the role regionalism had in conservation success. I liked that you touched upon the idea of scaling up, but I would have found it interesting to look at how the EU has already had so much economic –and now heading toward political€” regional integration, and how you think this factored or translated into the ability to work regionally toward environmental protection, especially in terms of how they have handled shared responsibilities in the past. It would have been helpful, in this sense, to in your case studies add your input as to how much each country followed the environmental implementations of the NATURA regime, if they were punished (or rather, warned) for not doing so, and other factors that could show where the weaknesses really lay. Overall, I found it to be a good glimpse of the project and what needs to happen to make something like this work, even with players that are already highly integrated and share many common goals, just wish there was a bit more focus on this idea of the role of previous regional integration in the success of a project like this.
I thought your use of case studies to investigate the success/failure of varying sites very effective. They did a very good job of demonstrating the range of implementation possible among various national or subnational institutions. I enjoyed the brief mention of the different opinions of member states (sweeden & germany) concerning Natura2000s effectiveness, however, as with the case studies I feel that there was a lack of direct analysis concerning the implications of this diversity of application and opinion. How do the varying voices affect Natura’s success? How do the actors undermine or support the ecological benefits of the network of sites? Is the loose structure you mention effective or detrimental in enabling countries to create nature preserves? I would also have liked to see some connection to ideas in the class readings… for example, to what extent does a group of nations as economically integrated as the EU (Dicken) have an advantage in implementing supranational agreements? What mechanisms are there in the program for enforcement? Are there important connections in any of these case studies to the politics of scale discussed in swyngedouw? How does a very industrial minded group of countries like the EU have a unique perspective on engaging with ‘produced nature,’ in the sense that, as your case studies describe, they are ‘restoring’ habitats through further environmental engineering? Does this have anything to do with Germany’s claim that top down environmental action is limiting ‘actual progress’ (ie. does the supranational scale exclude smaller scale environmental action by dictating a specific procedure or method for conservation). Overall, I think your blog has a lot of information. I think you have some good analysis, but there could be a lot more interconnection among the info presented, the ideas that pop up in your writing, and the academic content we’ve discussed in class.
I also enjoyed the three case studies. I think that although they all showed at least some form of moderate success, each also showed how this multi-national organization, which would seemingly have a great deal of power, is reliant on local initiative for its success. It was mentioned on the home-page that the organization does not yet have well defined goals, and this undoubtedly is part of the reason it is so reliant on the locals; however, it seems as if Natura 2000 does not offer much in terms of allowing the locals to scale up. What are the long terms effects of a multi-national organization hat is completely dependent on local will for its success?
I was also curious about how Natura 2000 came to choose a certain site. Is it purely out of local desire to better their environment, or is it, like the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor, in which areas are sometimes just chosen? I would have also liked to known something more about how Natura 2000 is doing more harm than good as well. But, overall I enjoyed the blog and found it very informative and interesting.
Thanks!
Hi Natura 2000 bloggers,
I was curious to learn about this initiative after having read Carr III’s comments about the relative effectiveness of the project. In framing it as sort of a model for Central America’s struggles in environmental protection, Carr explained how the EU had used “aggressive conservation” tactics and the concept of an “eminent domain” to “already encompass 15% of the land surface of Europe” (Carr III 38). Your blog responds in two ways to this appraisal– it seems like the case studies you present provide a very positive view about the possibilities of Natura 2000, whereas your analysis discusses the troublesome political and administrative discrepancies between member states. Therefore, I wonder how your assessment of Natura 2000 compares with that of Carr III. To get a better understanding of this, I would have liked to see a case study that highlighted these management struggles, rather than just looking at three successful projects. I think your analysis of case studies was extremely unique and useful as compared to other blogs, yet I wish there had been more diversity in their success rates.
Also, your analysis concludes with the confidence that effective “legislature and practice” could resolve these barriers to progress. I would have liked to see what kinds of legislation you feel would improve the situation. It seems as though administrative issues among member states is at the heart of the problem, according to your assessment, so I wonder how layering on more policy would resolve the situation.
In the opportunities section, you suggest creating a biological corridor within the Natura 2000 project space. As I am unfamiliar with the biological sites in Europe, where would that corridor be constructed? And what would the advantage be in creating a corridor rather than just sticking to these individual projects?As Finley-Brook investigates in her work on the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor, such corridors can “contribute to the intensification of uneven development” because of the scattered focus on “biodiversity hotspots” (Finley-Brook 101). With all of the human development across the continent, I imagine that Europe indeed does have biodiversity hotspots. For a system that already seems to struggle with effective implementation and administration (according to your analysis), I’m uncertain if a corridor would improve these issues.
Hey, Natura 2000 bloggers!
I enjoyed exploring around your blog and reading into the different case studies Natura 2000 has organized. Once the program improves their communication and regulate national laws among its members, I'm sure we'll be hearing many success stories.
You mention in your opening page that the local level involvement may be creating more harm than good, ecologically and economically. What leads you to this conclusion? Have there been any complaints among members? What is the relationship between the amount of money spent on the local projects versus the ecological improvements and social sacrifices? I was also wondering if Natura 2000 had annual or even semiannual meetings to discuss the future of the program in which all members were present. If they do have these meetings with representatives from every member, communication between them should improve. I was also wondering what your all thought about enforcing laws in these protected areas. You mention that only warnings have been given and no real serious action has been taken to those areas that disregard some of the conservation guidelines. If national laws were enforced, do you think that would increase each member's efforts for progress? Or do you think this would only frustrate them and cause them to retract?
Overall, I thought you did a thorough job analyzing this particular organization and I'm interested to see how Natura 2000 progress in the future.
While the analysis and Research Findings are both well-laid out and thoughtfully done, when moving directly from one to another, I found myself seeing something of a “gap” in the two. The three case studies featured in “Research Findings” the Netherlands, Slovenia, and Scotland. However, when it came to analyzing ongoing and potential problems under “Analysis,” we seemed to be dealing with different countries.
Sweden and Germany are given as examples of countries who respectively approve and disapprove of the Natura 2000 program. I can see the advantages of including a broad range of the EU countries in this blog, but it could also be more effective if one of the three examples given can be taken into the SWOT Analysis, possibly showing what, if any portion of the program in question, the German dissenters would object to. In this way, the disconnect between case studies and problems can be closed.
Another question is one that has been posed before, but I will briefly bring it up again as well; where are the local spheres of influence doing more harm than good? Most of the details given in your three case studies cast a positive light on the Natura 2000 program; if this problem is to be highlighted in Analysis, addressing it earlier on in case studies would be a good way of linking the two together and address the problem in a holistic manner.
I thought your blog was very informative regarding the Natura 2000 project. I especially enjoyed the "Research Findings" page and its exploration of three specific projects under the direction of the Natura 2000 program. Furthermore, I thought your organization of that page into background, objectives, and results was very effective in guiding the reader through your discussion of the different issues. I do have a couple suggestions, however, that I think would strengthen your blog. First, what is the organization/structure of Natura 2000 and how does it run? I think a discussion of the power relations among states within the project, including a look into the decision-making process, would provide very useful information to help explain the problems described in the "Analysis" section of the blog (including how and why all states have not implemented Natura 2000 policies). Perhaps on the "Background" page, there could have been a more in-depth look into the creation of Natura 2000. Who were the main proponents for the project and what compromises were made in its formation? This information would definitely have helped strengthen the blog. Second, at no point in the blog is there a definitive explanation of "scale" or "challenges to regional autonomy", two consistent themes throughout the blog. Including a discussion on issues dealt by Finley-Brook and Offen's Bounding the Commons: Land Demarcation in Northeastern Nicaragua or Perreault's Making Space: Community Organization, Agrarian Change, and the Politics of Scale in the Ecuadorian Amazon would have helped to define these important terms. It is important to provide a clear stance when assessing a project such as the Natura 2000 project and how its achievements compare with your points of evaluation.
Hi Natura 2000 bloggers!
I really like your research findings page with the case studies. It was a very effective, clear way to display how Natura 2000 has functioned well as an environmental action organization in arguably the most environmentally conscious region of the world.
One thing I wish you had developed a bit more in your blog was the reaction to the projects at the local level. On the introduction page, you mention that there are local questions as to whether some Natura 2000 programs cause more harm than good, but do not seem to incorporate this issue into your analysis of the project. Does Natura 2000 take into consideration the impact on local populations throughout its projects? Are people displaced? Are people not compensated? Does it alter human migration or activity? Thomas Perreault's work would have been useful with his discussion of the impact of scale on indigenous organizations in the Ecuadorian Amazon. Would Natura 2000 be more effective and have a better reputation locally if they worked more with the local populations to lessen any negative effects?
Hey Bloggers,
Is Nature 2000 an opportunity for or an obstacle to development? I believe that issues from Natura 2000 are issues that the European Union has in general. According to Sicken, some of the major weaknesses that the EU faces are the lack of cohesiveness when it comes to decision-making, debates concerning its enlargement, and different degrees of integration among member-states. Since most new member states have "transitional market economies," implementing Natura 2000 might not be a priority. This leads me to believe that these new members might view Natura 2000 as an obstacle to development.
The other issue is that, as you point out, states such as Germany view the initiative as having a top down approach which ultimately slows down progress. As one of the members in the Introductory video states, "it often happens that local communities are the last to find out about the protected areas which are located within their territory." I find this fascinating. Ironically, this reminds of the notion of "paper parks" mentioned in Carr’s article. Even though Carr is a strong advocate of Natura 2000, it seems that the initiative exhibits disconnects between the regional and the local. Your SWOT analysis states these weaknesses. Here, we are reminded of Perreault’s notion of ‘spacial scale’ and how it "provides mechanism for oppression and control." Numerous people in the video stated that the needs of the local people were not met. I would imagine that these people feel some degree of oppression. For further research, I would encourage you to read about people who are affected negatively by Natura 2000.
When looking at the theoretical aspect, I would suggest looking at Foucault’s "postulate that the production of knowledge and the exercise of power are intimately intertwined," as quoted by Sletto. I believe that some of Natura 2000’s shortcomings will provide for a good case study concerning geopolitics. Natura 2000’s major strength and, what Carr admires the most, is its fundamental understanding of the issue – it is about protecting species and habitat. Nevertheless, issues arise from the lack of local knowledge about the projects. A more comprehensive analysis on these issues would further enhance the blog.
I enjoyed your blog and the insights that I received from it.
Hey Bloggers,
Is Nature 2000 an opportunity for or an obstacle to development? I believe that issues from Natura 2000 are issues that the European Union has in general. According to Dicken, some of the major weaknesses that the EU faces are the lack of cohesiveness when it comes to decision-making, debates concerning its enlargement, and different degrees of integration among member-states. Since most new member states have "transitional market economies," implementing Natura 2000 might not be a priority. This leads me to believe that these new members might view Natura 2000 as an obstacle to development.
The other issue is that, as you point out, states such as Germany view the initiative as having a top down approach which ultimately slows down progress. As one of the members in the Introductory video states, "it often happens that local communities are the last to find out about the protected areas which are located within their territory." I find this fascinating. Ironically, this reminds of the notion of "paper parks" mentioned in Carr’s article. Even though Carr is a strong advocate of Natura 2000, it seems that the initiative exhibits disconnects between the regional and the local. Your SWOT analysis states these weaknesses. Here, we are reminded of Perreault’s notion of ‘spacial scale’ and how it "provides mechanism for oppression and control." Numerous people in the video stated that the needs of the local people were not met. I would imagine that these people feel some degree of oppression. For further research, I would encourage you to read about people who are affected negatively by Natura 2000.
When looking at the theoretical aspect, I would suggest looking at Foucault’s "postulate that the production of knowledge and the exercise of power are intimately intertwined," as quoted by Sletto. I believe that some of Natura 2000’s shortcomings will provide for a good case study concerning geopolitics. Natura 2000’s major strength and, what Carr admires the most, is its fundamental understanding of the issue – it is about protecting species and habitat. Nevertheless, issues arise from the lack of local knowledge about the projects. A more comprehensive analysis on these issues would further enhance the blog.
I enjoyed your blog and the insights that I received from it.
Hey NATURA 2000 bloggers
I think this blog was well-formatted, and one of the best aspects of it was that they approached such an expansive program by breaking it down and choosing three case studies to focus on. However, it may have been helpful to instead of choosing three instances that appeared to be relative success, to include atleast one program that had significant difficulties, to get a more well-rounded and thorough analysis of the role regionalism had in conservation success. I liked that you touched upon the idea of scaling up, but I would have found it interesting to look at how the EU has already had so much economic –and now heading toward political€” regional integration, and how you think this factored or translated into the ability to work regionally toward environmental protection, especially in terms of how they have handled shared responsibilities in the past. It would have been helpful, in this sense, to in your case studies add your input as to how much each country followed the environmental implementations of the NATURA regime, if they were punished (or rather, warned) for not doing so, and other factors that could show where the weaknesses really lay. Overall, I found it to be a good glimpse of the project and what needs to happen to make something like this work, even with players that are already highly integrated and share many common goals, just wish there was a bit more focus on this idea of the role of previous regional integration in the success of a project like this.
I thought your use of case studies to investigate the success/failure of varying sites very effective. They did a very good job of demonstrating the range of implementation possible among various national or subnational institutions. I enjoyed the brief mention of the different opinions of member states (sweeden & germany) concerning Natura2000s effectiveness, however, as with the case studies I feel that there was a lack of direct analysis concerning the implications of this diversity of application and opinion. How do the varying voices affect Natura’s success? How do the actors undermine or support the ecological benefits of the network of sites? Is the loose structure you mention effective or detrimental in enabling countries to create nature preserves? I would also have liked to see some connection to ideas in the class readings… for example, to what extent does a group of nations as economically integrated as the EU (Dicken) have an advantage in implementing supranational agreements? What mechanisms are there in the program for enforcement? Are there important connections in any of these case studies to the politics of scale discussed in swyngedouw? How does a very industrial minded group of countries like the EU have a unique perspective on engaging with ‘produced nature,’ in the sense that, as your case studies describe, they are ‘restoring’ habitats through further environmental engineering? Does this have anything to do with Germany’s claim that top down environmental action is limiting ‘actual progress’ (ie. does the supranational scale exclude smaller scale environmental action by dictating a specific procedure or method for conservation). Overall, I think your blog has a lot of information. I think you have some good analysis, but there could be a lot more interconnection among the info presented, the ideas that pop up in your writing, and the academic content we’ve discussed in class.
I also enjoyed the three case studies. I think that although they all showed at least some form of moderate success, each also showed how this multi-national organization, which would seemingly have a great deal of power, is reliant on local initiative for its success. It was mentioned on the home-page that the organization does not yet have well defined goals, and this undoubtedly is part of the reason it is so reliant on the locals; however, it seems as if Natura 2000 does not offer much in terms of allowing the locals to scale up. What are the long terms effects of a multi-national organization hat is completely dependent on local will for its success?
I was also curious about how Natura 2000 came to choose a certain site. Is it purely out of local desire to better their environment, or is it, like the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor, in which areas are sometimes just chosen? I would have also liked to known something more about how Natura 2000 is doing more harm than good as well. But, overall I enjoyed the blog and found it very informative and interesting.
Thanks!