{"id":7,"date":"2010-02-17T16:35:14","date_gmt":"2010-02-17T21:35:14","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/geog320natura\/analysis\/"},"modified":"2010-02-24T16:23:11","modified_gmt":"2010-02-24T21:23:11","slug":"analysis","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/geog320natura\/analysis\/","title":{"rendered":"Analysis"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

As you can see in our case studies, the Natura 2000 programs have been largely successful, with a large majority of the goals set by the individual projects on track to be met.\u00a0 These successes however, have been tempered by some unintended results as well as confusion amongst states as to the extent and norms of Natura 2000.\u00a0 In many cases the directives of Natura 2000 have not been turned into national laws and leave some loopholes in protected areas.\u00a0 Some states such as Sweden see the need for Natura 2000 as absolute and the directives as unquestionably legitimate and necessary.\u00a0 Other states such as Germany see Natura 2000 in a much different light, claiming it is taking a top down approach and it’s directives are blocking real progress.\u00a0 While these issues are inhibiting the true potential of Natura 2000 we believe them more to be growing pains, issues that can be easily resolved through legislature and practice and that the Natura 2000 program will be even more successful in the future.<\/p>\n

SWOT Analysis<\/u><\/p>\n

Strengths<\/u><\/p>\n