A TOP-DOWN EVALUATION OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NATURA 2000 NETWORK IN THE BROADS NATIONAL PARK. Laura Máiz-Tomé

Transcription

1 A TOP-DOWN EVALUATION OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NATURA 2000 NETWORK IN THE BROADS NATIONAL PARK By Laura Máiz-Tomé Thesis presented in part-fulfilment of the Master of Science in accordance with the regulations of the University of East Anglia. School of Environmental Sciences August 2010 University of East Anglia University Plain Norwich NR4 7TJ 2010 MSc. Student This copy of the dissertation has been supplied on condition that anyone who consults it is understood to recognise that its copyright rests with the author and that no quotation from the dissertation, nor any information derived there from, may be published without the author s prior written consent. Moreover, it is supplied on the understanding that it represents an internal University document and that neither the University nor the author are responsible for the factual or interpretative correctness of the dissertation. 1

2 For love of lovely words and for the sake Of those, my kinsmen and my countrymen, Who early and late in the windy ocean toiled To plant a star for seamen, where was then The surfy haunt of seals and cormorants ( ) R.L.Stevenson. 2

3 -CONTENTS- Acknowledgements Abstract Introduction Literature Review Implementation Studies The Top-Down Approach Justification of the Case Study Methodology Data Collection Background 3.1. EU Conservation Policy and the Natura 2000 Network A Brief History of Biodiversity Policy The Constellation of actors involved in the implementation of Natura The objectives of the Natura 2000 Network Putting the programme into practice Results of the Implementation of the Natura 2000 network in the Broads National Park 4.1. The UK National Context The Broads National Park Policy Objectives and Policy outputs Implementation Resources Policy Outcomes Discussion Conclusions Recommendations References Annexes Broads Maps 3

4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express my sincere gratitude and deep appreciation to my dissertation advisor, Professor Andrew Jordan, for his time and constant help in my research. I will forever be thankful to my parents and my sister for their support, which gave me the strength to fulfil my studies. Finally, I would also like to express my warmest gratitude to Dr. Paul Southam, Matti Karhunen, Ainura Kamaldinova and Andrea Reviglio for their encouragement and support during this academic year at the University of East Anglia. 4

5 ABSTRACT. After the Earth Summit in Rio in 1992, the EU created the Natura 2000 Network within the Biodiversity and Nature policy, in order to designate Special Areas of Conservation, with the aim to halt biodiversity loss by However, the implementation of EU policies is left on the hands of member states, which have a margin of discretion to decide which methods and procedures are they going to use in order to comply with the EU requirements. The challenge of this study will be to develop a set of indicators, using a top-down approach, to assess the implementation effectiveness of the Natura 2000 programme in the Broads National Park (UK). On the one hand, the study is going to show that the good reputation of the UK in the implementation of the EU policy is justified in the case of the Broads. This has been proof by explaining, describing and analysing the objectives of the programme, comparing them with the measures put into practice. On the other hand, the study will demonstrate that, in the particular case of the Broads, having a favourable national context, available resources and an effective implementation of conservation and restoration measures, are necessary conditions, but not sufficient for the achievement of the desired policy outcomes. Key Words: Natura 2000 Network; Implementation; Habitats Directive; The Broads National Park; Top-Down Approach; EU Nature and Biodiversity Policy. 5

6 1. INTRODUCTION Coinciding with the International Year of Biodiversity (2010), and with the end of the Natura 2000 network programme, an EU wide network of nature protection areas, established within the EU Biodiversity Action Plan, under the 1992 Habitats Directive with the aim to halt biodiversity loss before This dissertation is going to, on the one hand, describe and explain this centrepiece of the EU Nature and Biodiversity Policy, by focusing on the implementation of the Natura 2000 network, in the Broads National Park (UK); and, on the other hand, the study is going to carry out a top-down analysis, in order to evaluate the implementation effectiveness of the Natura 2000 programme in the Broads National Park. The Natura 2000 network forms part of the EU Nature and Biodiversity policy. By policy this dissertation understands: a legislative and administrative activity aimed at the resolution of real problems. These are, in this case, biodiversity loss and environmental degradation across Europe (Knoepfel, 2007:24). The Habitats Directive its at the core of the Natura 2000 Network, and establishes the legal requirements that need to be implemented in order to promote the environmental protection necessary to halt biodiversity loss. In order to assess the effectiveness of the Natura 2000 Network, this study is going to be focused on the implementation process. Understanding policy implementation as: The carrying out of a basic policy decision, usually incorporated in a statute but which can also take the form of important executive orders or court decisions. Ideally, that decision identifies the problem(s) to be addressed, stipulates the objective(s) to be pursued, and in a variety of ways, structures the implementation process. (Mazmanian & Sabatier,1983: 20-21) Putting it into another way, implementation is a set of processes after the programming phase that are aimed at the concrete realisation of the objectives 6

7 of a public policy (Knoephel, 2007: 188) and which often automatically includes the law in action (Holzinger et al., 2002). In this way, policy implementation follows three fundamental stages (Glachant, 2001:15): 1) Transposition: Consists on any legislative, administrative or regulatory measure taken by the competent authority of a Member State in order to incorporate into the national context the obligations, rights and duties of the EU Directives. 2) Practical Application: This is the incorporation of European law by the competent authorities into individual decisions at the local level, and the provision of resources needed in order to enable implementers to make appropriate decisions and to meet their legal obligations. 3) Enforcement: Measures taken by the competent authorities in order to encourage or compel others to comply with EU legislation. Considering this, the success or effectiveness of the policy implementation process will be determined in this study by the transposition of the Habitats Directive, the establishment of the required implementation acts, a favourable national context, available resources and the consecution of policy objectives (Sabatier, 1986). This is the match between requirements of the Natura 2000 network and the implementation acts (outputs) established; and, on the other hand, the match between the desired policy outcomes of the programme with the final results (outcomes) achieved in the Broads National Park. To sum up, the principal aim of this dissertation is to develop a set of performance indicators against which the effectiveness of the implementation of policy outputs required by the Natura 2000 network will be evaluated from a top-down approach in the Broads National Park, in order analyse to what extent the objectives were attained over time. Thus, the research question that this dissertation is going to try to answer has two main parts: 1) Have the outputs been effectively implemented? 2) Have they been efficient? 7

8 On the one hand, the first part will be analysed looking at the implementation acts put into practice, together with the resources made available for this purpose, and the characteristics of the national context affecting this process. In this way, the good reputation of the UK in implementation of EU policy will be tested in the case of the Broads, considering the effectiveness of this policy implementation. On the other hand, the second part of the research question will be analysed looking at the results (outcomes) obtained from the implementation acts (outputs) established. Thus, three relevant objectives following this principal aim are going to be: 1) Identify the main factors affecting the implementation process. 2) Test if the good reputation of the UK in EU policy implementation is justified in the case of the Broads National Park. 3) Analyse if a favourable national context, resources and effective implementation of policy outcomes are sufficient conditions to achieve the desired outcomes Literature Review Implementation Studies During a long period of time, European studies was primarily focused on policy-making instead of policy-implementation, because monitoring and the control of the implementation processes would probably have reduced the level of support of member states (Jordan, 1999, Majone, 2002). Studies on the implementation of public policy emerged in the United States at the beginning of the decade of 1970, while in Europe the evaluation of policy implementation became a central issue on the political agenda during the 1990s. The principal aim of these studies was bridging the gap that existed between policy-making and the evaluation of the policy outcomes (Hill, 2009 and Knill &Liefferick, 2007). This is what Hargrove (1975) defined as the missing link. 8

9 When implementation analysis started to be carried out, feedback and considerable amount of reports made by member states were made available to the Commission, as a requirement to assess implementation effectiveness and legal compliance (Mastenbroek, 2005). However, the Commission records on the implementation of the Natura 2000 network, as provided by member states, are likely to be biased or incomplete, as the states have incentives to provide less information than what they have in the reality (Mastenbroek, 2005). In addition, these records do not specify anything about the timeliness and correctness of the implementation process (Hartlapp & Faulkner, 2009). The only comprehensive data on member states about non-compliance with the Habitats Directive is provided by the Annual Reports of the Commission on the Monitoring of the Application of Community Law, which reports on member states infringements (Böerzel, 2001). However, the infringements proceedings presented in these reports, only deal with cases of non-compliance which have been identified by the Commission, or have been demanded by companies, citizens, interest groups or NGOs on member states. Thus, it is very likely that some faults be overlooked (Böerzel, 2001). Furthermore, it is important to notice that environmental issues, as biodiversity, were not included in the original Treaty of Rome (1957), and thus, the EU regulation of this area is not completely accepted or considered legitimate in all the EU member states (Baker, 2003). The different factors affecting policy implementation presented by the literature are primarily institutional and cultural ones. On the one hand, institutional factors like the goodness of fit, this is, the fit or miss fit between European rules and the national regulatory and institutional traditions (Böerzel,2000); the theory of veto players, which states that the reform capacity of a political system decreases as the number of actors whose agreement is required approve such a reform increases (Tsebelis, 2002), and that the implementation of the EU Directives may be costly in terms sovereignty loose and freedom to act becoming a significant veto point against the implementation of a policy (Jordan, 1999), and finally, the theory of administrative efficiency determining implementation success (Pridham,1996). On the other hand, cultural factors as the three worlds of compliance defined 9

10 by Falkner (2005) as law observance, domestic concern and transposition neglect (Flakner, 2005), as well as the national compliance culture (Toshkov,2007) has been defined as significant factors affecting policy implementation. The idea of implementation deficit is linked with the idea of non-compliance and non-compliance procedures, in especial when the deficit is related to an EU law, like the Habitats Directive (centrepiece of the Natura 2000 programme). In order to comply with the rules of the EU, member states have to fulfil their obligations during the different stages of transposition of the Habitats Directive at the domestic level, implementation process, and monitoring the Directive once it has been put into practice (Hartlapp & Faulkner, 2009). In this way, compliance with EU legislation is a potential result of the whole implementation process (Hartlapp & Faulkner, 2009). If an infringement is committed, it will be published on the homepage of the Secretariat-General together with the infringement procedure. The infringement procedures can have different forms: a letter of formal notice, a reasoned opinion, a referral to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) or a Judgement by the ECJ ) started by the Commission (Articles 226 and 228 of the EC Treaty). However, and despite all these procedures, it do not exist a European environmental inspectorate with powers of enforcement on member states (Carter, 2007). Not surprisingly then, some studies have showed that Environmental policy has been one among all the policy areas with the highest infringements procedures carried out (Börzel, 2006). To sum up, considering all the above, the lack of information about implementation is a fact, that exists mainly because, despite the Commission has power to bring enforcement proceedings against member states who does not comply or implement properly the requirements of the Habitats Directive, and despite the European Court of Justice is responsible of ensuring that it is properly implemented, monitoring and implementation are primarily in the hands of member states, who rarely provide transparent and fair information about this procedures (Baker, 2003). 10

11 The Top-Dow Approach. In order to link policy formulation with policy implementation, and analyse the implementation effectiveness, the top-down approach was one of the first approaches created to explain and evaluate the policy implementation process. The top-down theory defends that, on the one hand, policy formulation and decision-making are made at the top level institutions. While, on the other hand, policy implementation and evaluation is done at the national level of member states (Sabatier, 1986). In the case study of the Natura 2000 programme, the former top institutions that have developed it are the ones at the European Level, while the UK governmental institutions are the responsible of doing the transposition of the Habitats Directive into the national law, in order to comply with the legal requirements of the EU. Putting it into another way, the EU has the power to adopt binding legislation, as the Habitats Directive, that requires no review or ratification at the national level, but the implementation responsibility depends primarily on member states (Jordan, 2001). In this context Van Meter and Van Horn understand implementation as: Those actions by public or private individuals (or groups) that are directed at the achievement of objectives set forth in prior policy decisions. (Van Meter & Van Horn, 1975:445) Considering all the above, the Top-Down approach makes a clear distinction between policy formulation and policy implementation, and it is primarily concerned with the control of the implementation process (Hill, 2009). The Top Down approach understands the implementation process in a vertical and centralised way, following a hierarchical structure from the top (EU) where policy is made, to the bottom (national level of member states) where policy is implemented (Hill, 2009). In this way, the Top-Down approach aims to achieve the set of static objectives defined at the top level, following a programmed strategy and understanding policy implementation success as the 11

12 match between policy objectives and policy outcomes (Berman, 1980, and Knill & Liefferink, 2007). Furthermore, top-downers are deeply concerned with policy effectiveness, mainly from the point of view of policy outputs, this are, the implementation acts required to achieve the desired outcomes, and thus they are also considerably concerned with the capability of implementers to put into practice those required implementation acts, and their capability to guide and limit the behaviours of the different actors involved in the policy process (Sabatier, 1986). Following this argument, Christopher Hood (1976), analysed the role of the policy implementers and the administration, defining perfect administration as the: Condition in which external elements of resource availability and political acceptability combine with administration to produce perfect policy implementation (Hood, 1976: 6) Understanding that decision making is done at the EU level, and implementation takes place at national level, in many occasions, implementers not familiarised with the policy, can interpret it in the wrong way, causing different problems during the implementation process (Barrett & Hill 1981). For these reason, top-downers also try to advise implementers for better practice (Sabatier, 1986). In order to do so, Sabatier (1986) has defined a list of factors that should be controlled, and other factors, that might cause potential problems in the implementation process. These factors constitute generally necessary conditions to be achieved, and taken into account, for the effective implementation of the legal objectives required in the Habitats Directive. These factors listed by Sabatier are the following (Sabatier, 1986: 25): 1) Clear and consistent objectives: Provide a standard for of evaluation and legal resources for implementers. 2) Adequate causal theory. 3) Implementation process legally structured to improve compliance by implementing officials and target groups. 4) Committed and skilful implementing officials. 5) Support of interest groups and sovereigns. 12

13 6) Changes in socio-economic conditions which do not substantially undermine political support. The three first conditions make reference to the policy formulation, while the other three are determined by the political, social and economic context affecting the implementation process (Sabatier, 1986). Drawing into the literature about the top-down approach, it can be found different authors contributions about this policy phase. Jeffrey Pressman and Aaron Wildavsky (1984) are considered to be the founding fathers of the topdown approach (Hill & Hupe, 2009). They introduced the idea of that in an implementation process, agencies acts have to match with policy objectives in order to avoid implementation deficits. In this way, they understand that policy defines objectives and then, the implementation analysis should be focused on the factors that prevent the achievement of those policy goals. Following this, Donald Van Meter and Carl Van Horn (1975) suggest that implementation will be most successful where only marginal change is required and goal consensus is high (Van Meter & Van Horn, 1975:461). This idea was taken in the late 1990s by students of Europeanization, who tried to explain the differential impact of EU on member states by introducing the idea of goodness of fit (Mastenbroek, 2005). The Goodness of fit theory considers that successful implementation depends on the fit between EU Nature and Biodiversity Policy requirements, and existing institutions at the national level (Böerzel, 2003). In order to make a policy fit into the national context in a way that it does not generate important mismatches, and thus it will be easier to implement, Eugene Bardach (1977) understanding implementation as involving games, recommends policymakers, to design or model the policy in a way that helps to achieve the desired objectives and to fix the games in order to achieve effective implementation (Bardach, 1977). The principal weaknesses and critique of the top-down model is that it is focused on the EU decision-makers and policy framers, and thus, tend to neglect other actors or consider them as mere obstacles for the policy implementation process. As a direct consequence of this, the initiatives 13

14 emerging from the public and private actors, and local implementing officials, are often ignored (Sabatier, 1986). This critique has been contested by Brian Hogwood and Lewis Gunn (1984) who support their top-down approach saying that policy-makers, making decisions at the top level are democratically elected, and thus implementation acts are legitimate. However, the social reality is complex, and as consequence of this, policy is also complex, because it affects different sectors and comprise a plurality of organisations, actors and levels of government with different objectives, preferences, interests and resources (Berman, 1980). Following this, many policies represent compromises between conflicting values. These are for example, compromises with key interests within the implementation process, and compromises with key interests likely to be affected by the policy implementation (Hill, 2009). Emerging from this understanding of the social reality, another critic was made by Barrett and Hill (1981) who consider that policies are made from negotiations between actors at a bottom level, trying to defend their values and interests. Thus, policies require cooperation and a certain level of consensus for its effective implementation. In this way policy is developed during time, and it is not as direct forward as top-downers understand it. In this way, Barret and Fudge (1981), understand implementation as: A policy/action continuum in which an interactive and negotiation process is taking place over time between those seeking to put policy into effect and those upon whom action depends (Barret & Fudge, 1981: 25) Finally, a last critique done to the top-down approach is its assumption about that policy objectives are always clear and consistent. It has been demonstrated that few programmes follow this structure, having in many occasions blurred and conflicting objectives (Sabatier, 1986). 14

15 TOP-DOWN Implementation Success: Match between policy objectives and outcomes. Implementation Direction: Vertical-Centralised Target-Oriented Hierarchy Focused on Outputs Static Objectives Programmed Strategy Clear distinction between policy formulation and policy implementation Table1. The Top-Down Characteristics. Loose Adapted from Knill & Liefferink, 2007 and Knoepfel, Justification of the Study Regarding to the specific case study, selected for the evaluation from a top-down perspective of the policy effectiveness implementation of the Natura 2000 network, the UK has been chosen because of its good reputation of committed implementer that follows through the legal requirements of the UE. Having a low number of veto players showing opposition during policy implementation process, due to its centralised governmental structure (Hanley, 1998). Following this, it should be very likely to find an effective implementation of the required outputs of the Natura 2000 Network within this national context in the particular case of The Broads National Park, selected within the UK Special Areas of Conservation. However, implementation acts do not always have the desired results. There are many factors affecting in a negative way the implementation process, as for example: interpretation problems of the Directive, administrative shortcomings, lack of time and resources, changes on the socio-economic conditions, etc (Falkner et al. 2005). Consequently, the existence of policy implementation gaps is a fact, well known by the citizens as implementation is an open process to the citizenship scrutiny. These gaps in 15

16 the implementation process contribute to the government discredit and increase the mistrust on the administration (Hill, 1997). The evaluation of implementation effectiveness carried out in this dissertation is of relevance, because it will try to fill the information gap that exists about the implementation effectiveness and efficiency of the Natura 2000 network on the Broads National Park, and it will try to help to understand some weaknesses and strengths of the implementation process as well as the factors affecting it. This, in turn, will facilitate to make some recommendations, limited to this particular case study, which may be helpful for those who have to make decisions in order to improve the performance of this National Park, using the considerable amount of work, time and economic resources invested in the implementation process in a most efficient way (Hill, 1997). Bearing in mind all of these, the UK Broads National Park has been considered a good case study for the evaluation of the implementation effectiveness form a top-down approach. Taking an EU programme (Natura 2000 network) based on a piece of EU legislation (Habitats Directive) developed at the top level of the EU institutions, and download into the UK national level (Figure 1). This is what Bulmer and Radaelli (2004) understand as Europeanization: A processes of a) construction, b) diffusion, c) institutionalization of formal and informal rules, procedures, policy paradigms, styles, ways of doing things and shared beliefs and norms which are first defined and consolidated in the EU policy process and then incorporated in the logic of domestic (national and subnational) discourse, political structures and public policies (Blumer & Radaelli, 2004: 4) 16

17 EROPEAN UNION Habitats Directive TOP-DOWN IMPLEMENTATION Natura 2000 Network Programme UNITED KINGDOM The Broads National Park Figure 1. Top-Down Implementation of Natura 2000 Network in the Broads. Source: Own figure. 17

18 2. METHODOLOGY Considering all the above, the main objective of this dissertation is to evaluate against a set of performance indicators, from a top-down approach, if the implementation of the Natura 2000 network has been carried out effectively in the Broads National Park. It is not the aim of this study to generalise the results to other similar policy implementation processes. The idea is to deeply analyse and understand the implementation of Natura 2000 network in this specific context that might be also a useful example to illustrate the top-down implementation theory. If we want assess implementation effectiveness of the Natura 2000 Network, first we need to identify the criteria for the analysis. The theory used in this dissertation in order to evaluate implementation effectiveness, is going to be the defined top-down approach. This approach is target oriented, and refers to the distinction between policy objectives and policy outputs. In this case, effective implementation is the result of a match between the legal transposition and the practical application with the objectives defined by the policy. Thus, from a top-down perspective, the implementation acts and the degree of goal achievement serves as indicators of the implementation success. The top-down theoretical approach has been selected for the evaluation of the Natura 2000 programme, because it has been considered the most appropriate one due to the vertical direction of the implementation process of the Natura 2000 network (from the top of the EU to the UK national level), as well as, due to the UK governmental centralisation structure. In addition, the Top-Down approach is focused on the analysis of implementation deficits. This means given a normative qualification as a result of a comparison between what is observed and what is expected (Hill & Hupe, 2009: 11), and thus, in this way, the Top-Down approach facilitates the study of the implementation process, providing evaluation criteria for carrying out the study focusing on the objectives of Natura 2000 programme, the implementation acts and the obtained results. Furthermore, the Top-Down approach has been 18

19 chosen because as well as this dissertation, it is primarily interested in mean responses, focused on the policy outputs of the implementation process (Sabatier, 1986). By policy output this dissertation understands the implementation acts carried out in order to achieve policy objectives, put it into a formulated question: Have the specified activities for the achievement of policy goals been established?. However, the dissertation, in order to evaluate implementation effectiveness, and evaluate the efficiency of policy outputs, is also going consider the policy outcomes of the Natura 2000 network in the Broads, this are, the results of policy implementation, or putting it into a question: did the implementation acts achieved the policy objectives set to deal with the problem of biodiversity loss? (Hill & Hupe, 2009: 137). Peter Knoepfel has defined the following seven fundamental stages of the policy process (Knoepfel et al, 2007: 32-33): 1) Emergence or perception of the problem: Biodiversity Loss, species extinction, habitats degradation... 2) Perception of Private and Public Problems: Negative effects on human health, resources scarcity due to over exploitation, economic losses, etc. 3) Agenda Setting: Consideration by the key actors of the political and administrative system, of the different demands for action. 4) Policy Formulation: formulation of the political-administrative programme, this is the Natura 2000 network within the EU 6 th Biodiversity Action Plan. Selection of objectives, instruments and procedures to be implemented in order to resolve the problem. 5) Policy Implementation: Putting the programme into practice. This is outputs production. 6) Policy Evaluation: Determine the results and effects of the policy. Outcomes production. 19

20 (Re-) Emergence of a problem Evaluation of Policy Effets Perception of private and public problems Implementation of Action Plans (Natura 2000 Network) Agenda Setting Adoption of a legislative programme (Habitats Directive) Formulation of AlternativesAgenda Setting Figure 2: The Policy Process (Source: Knoepfel, et al.,2007:32). Understanding in this way the policy process, the dissertation is going to be focused on the two last stages (Table 2). These are, Policy Implementation (carrying out) and Policy Evaluation (obtained results). By policy evaluation this study understands the analysis of the outputs, resources, actors, institutions and obtained outcomes, in order to assess implementation effectiveness as well as its efficiency, this is, the relationship between the resources invested in a policy and the effects achieved (Knoepfel, 2007: ). 20

21 Object IMPLEMENTATION Process/Behaviour Outputs Outcomes EVALUATION Outcomes/Values Links Research Act Description Explanation Testing Analytical Judgements Value Judgements Table. 2 Source: Implementation and Evaluation Research (Hill&Hupe, 2009:12) Furthermore, instead of carrying out the analysis focusing only on the policy outcomes, which will be constrained by the reduced baseline information, the dissertation is going to be focus primarily on the policy outputs, this are the implementation acts, and thus, it is going to evaluate what are the procedures followed in order to meet the objectives of the Natura 2000 programme, as well as to what extent the Norfolk Broads National Park complies with the EU Habitats Directive embedded within the programme. In this way, the top-down perspective, used in this dissertation is going to take as reference the original objectives of the Habitats Directive, incorporated into the Natura 2000 programme and taste if a high number of mismatches, derivations and shifts happen during its execution on the Broads National Park, as direct result of different factors (resources, national context, outputs and outcomes) involved and influencing the implementation process (Kinill & Liefferink, 2007:146). 21

22 In order to carry out the analysis formal qualitative methods will be use, as measurable qualitative and quantitative indicators designed to show the levels of policy achievement. All these indicators will determine the quality of the implementation process and thus, they are going to be used to measure the policy performance of the Natura 2000 programme (Table 3). In this way, the effectiveness of implementation will be analyzed using the following evaluation framework: ASSESSMENT TOOL Policy Objectives Resources National Context Policy Outputs Policy Outcomes PERFORMANCE INDICATORS Identification of key objectives of the Natura 2000 network, against which policy success will be evaluated. Quantity and adequacy of staff, funding, equipment, information, organisation, infrastructures, time... Adequacy of national environmental policy settings created for the implementation of the Natura 2000 network and changes in the socio-economic conditions. Extent and trend of actions and institutions created to implement Natura 2000 Extent to which key policy values and objectives have been maintained or enhanced. Table 3. Assessment tools and Indicators adapted from Hockings et al, 2009: 53, and Sabatier, 1981:25). The dissertation is going to take the Broads as case study, using an analytical perspective in order to provide a consistent knowledge of the Natura 2000 programme. The ambition of the analysis will be to understand the aims and objectives of the Natura 2000 programme and how does it work, explain 22

23 how it was implemented in the Broads National Park, and try to anticipate the factors affecting the policy that influence its effective implementation. Considering this, the dissertation outline is going to follow the three levels of analysis that can be identified in this dissertation (Yin, 2003): The following point is going to provide a background, carrying out a conceptual analysis, defining the Action Plan (AP) object of study, this is the Natura 2000 Network, its history, actors involved, objectives and how does it work. Having constructed this baseline, an empirical description will describe the national context, the implementation acts put into practice, available resources, and obtained outcomes in the Broads National Park. Following this, an empirical explicative and critic discussion of the study and the study results will be carried out. Finally, the main conclusions achieved through the development of this dissertation will be summed up, incorporating some feedback and recommendations. 1 Conceptual analysis: What? Inroduction & Background 2 Empirical Description: How? Methodology & Results 3 Empirical Explicative: Why? Analysis & Conclusions Figure 3. The Dissertation Three levels of Analysis (Adapted from Yin, 2003) Data Collection. The methods used for the data collection have been documents revision, on line information from official websites and library resources, this is secondary research. Thus, in order to increase the credibility and validity of the results and overcome weaknesses and biases, a triangulation of the data collection methods is going to compare when possible, the data obtained from official websites publications, documents and library resources. The use of different sources for data collection is going to facilitate, the validation of data through cross verification from more than two sources (Yin, 2003). 23

24 Given the limited time and resources available, this design for the data collection has been considered the most appropriate one in comparison with others that would probably require more time and resources, as for example, focus groups or interviews. To sum up, the principal materials that are going to be used for the development of this study are going to be following: 1) Academic Literature: Published theories and hypothesis, aimed at explaining the observations of the implementation process. 2) Professional Literature: In especial articles published in professional journals. 3) Formal Publications: Like European Legislation, annual reports of the government, action plans as well as non-governmental organizations. 4) Data sources: As social surveys, published statistics and information from official websites. 24

25 3. BACKGROUND 3.1. The EU Nature and Biodiversity Policy and Natura 2000 Network A Brief History of the EU Biodiversity Policy European ecosystems have been strongly influenced by the human beings for a very long period of time, and thus, they are not only the result of natural processes. Without the human intervention, Europe would have looked very different today. Considering the existing climate, soil and topography more than the 80-90% of the continent should be cover up by forest nowadays (Sundseth, 2008). However, currently, only a third part of the EU is forested, and most of these areas are managed or under logging (Araujo et al, 2008). Forestry and biodiversity loss has its origins long time ago. However, it experienced a faster acceleration by the end of the II World War (1945), when Europe had to face a hard situation of poverty, hunger and destruction. In order to recover Europe from the devastating effects of the war, and deal with its social and economic problems, farmers were encouraged to intensify their productivity (Sundseth, 2008, McCormick, 2001). As a direct consequence of this, in a short period of time, a deep transformation of the ways of working the land and the traditional small family farms supplying local markets took place. New larger and highly mechanised farms, specialised in the industrial scale production emerge together with new intensive monocultures practices, based on the use of pesticides and chemical fertilizers (Araujo et al, 2008). This agricultural revolution halted the hunger and helped countries to recover from poverty. However, this intensification of the production, maintained during a long period of time, and enhanced by founds provided by the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) during 1973, triggered dramatic consequences for Europe s biodiversity (Henle et al, 2008). The European Environment Agency has confirmed that as a result of urban, infrastructure, tourism development, agricultural and forestry intensification, many European species are in danger of extinction: 64 endemic plants of Europe have already become extinct; 38% of bird species and 45% of 25

26 butterflies are threatened and, the first case of extinction (a type of mountain goat) of a specie already listed in the Habitats Directive has happened (EC, 2002). Furthermore, pressures upon ecosystems are also intense. Particularly, the wetlands, as the Broads National Park, in north and west Europe have been reduced by some 60% in recent decades (EC, 2002). When people around Europe began to realise that the agricultural practices carried out across Europe were not sustainable at all, and were causing perverse impacts on human s health and on the environment, citizens became more concerned, and started to mobilize their demands to governments for stricter regulations. Still nowadays demands for stricter regulations are seen as the favourite measures demanded by EU citizens, as it has been showed in the results of the last Eurobarometer (2010): Source: Eurobarometer 2010: 35. The Governments recognition of the need to coordinate efforts for the conservation of Europe s biodiversity, in order to respond to citizen demands, led to the policy-making at the EU level of new environmental laws and regulations, which are now of mandatory compliance across the 27 member states (Knill &Lifferink, 2007). The creation of the Natura 2000 network, to deal with the large scale destruction and fragmentation of wildlife habitats, is a direct response to public concerns over the rapid loss of nature across Europe. 26

27 Accordingly to the last Erobarometer (2010) survey, the decline and possible extinction of animal species, flora and fauna, natural habitats and ecosystems are seen as serious problems by EU citizens: more than 8 in 10 respondents (84%- 93%) felt that biodiversity loss was a very or fairly serious problem at national, European and global levels. In the following graphics it can be seen the level of concern across Europe about the biodiversity loss: Source: Eurobarometer 2010: 23 However, the issue of biodiversity conservation has not gained the same relevance on the political agenda as climate change, and it is not either a priority among the public concerns. Despite the fact that these were the two main policy areas resulted in binding Conventions after the Rio Summit in Thus, public mobilization, pressure and demands for biodiversity conservation have been remarkably lower in comparison to other environmental policy areas (Baker, 2003). The UN Earth Summit held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 led to different multinational environmental agreements, including to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). The CBD main contribution was that it put together ecological, economic and social considerations through the promotion of sustainable development and the maintenance of biological diversity ( By biological diversity the Convention understands: "the variability among living organisms from all sources including, inter alia, 27

28 terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are part; this includes diversity within species, between species and of ecosystems" (CBD,1992). Following the Rio Summit, and in order to be consistent with the CBD (Rosendal, 2001), the Natura 2000 network was created within the fifth European Union Environmental Action Programme (EAP) in 1992, which established the following five policy targets for the use and conservation of biodiversity (ECE, 1992: 48): 1) Maintenance or restoration of natural habitats and species of wild fauna and flora a favourable conservation status, 2) Promotion of sustainable land management practices in and around habitats importance 3) Creation of the Natura 2000 European Network of protected sites, 4) Maintenance of strict control over the abuse of, and trade in, wild species 5) Protection of the forests. Furthermore, it is important to bear in mind that EU Biodiversity policy tries to address in its Action Plan (2006) the challenge of integrating biodiversity concerns into other policy sectors in a unified way (EU Biodiversity Action Plan 2006). Thus, Biodiversity Policy has implications for other major EU policies, because of this integration principle that requires introduce environmental considerations in all policy making processes. In other words, EU biodiversity policy it is not an isolated policy (Fairbrass & Jordan, 2001). Biodiversity loss is closely related with local dimensions, as human-nature interactions at the local level are still seen as the major direct causes of biodiversity loss (Millenium Ecosystem Assessment, 2003: and Rauschemayer et al, 2009). However, not only problems at European level are harming biodiversity, but also global problems like climate change and acid rain are threatening it. These global problems have rapidly increased their relevance in recent years, as they constitute a threat to biodiversity which does not recognise boundaries. This type of cross-boundary problems have reduced the capacity of the nation states to engage in independent effective environmental governance, and thus, the member states have had to adopt a different 28

29 strategy, putting pressure on the Commission, in order to try to achieve a more effective coordination to deal with biodiversity loss (Baker, 2003). In order to manage this scenery, protected area governance in the EU has changed the traditional state-based management of natural areas into a multilevel governance model, which spreads responsibilities and powers between a wide number of private and public actors, communities, NGOs, individuals and governments (Fairbrass&Jordan, 2001, Benson & Jordan, 2007 and Bache& Flinders, 2004) The constellation of actors involved in the implementation of Natura 2000 Network. The Natura 2000 programme does not consist on a traditional approach of a classic system of strict nature reserves where all human activities are systematically excluded (Sundseth, 2008). Instead, it adopts a different approach by recognising man as an integral part of nature, and considering that both work better in partnership with each other (EC,2009:3). Under the Article 2 of the Habitats Directive, member states are required to protect habitats taking into account economic, social and cultural considerations, as well as the regional and local characteristics. However, the Article 6 (4) of the Directive, allows environmental harming projects to proceed if there are social or economic reasons that justify it. If this type of harming developments takes place, compensatory measures are required in order to maintain the coherence of the programme (Fairbass&Jordan, 2001a). Putting all of this into practice means cooperation and close work with stakeholder groups and landowners, affected by the designation of Natura 2000 sites, in order to negotiate and achieve a consensus on the most effective ways to conserve the habitats and the species, respecting at the same time, the local socio-economic context (EC, 2009). A significant point to be noticed is that, as the current survey results of the Eurobarometer (2010) have showed, EU citizens across Europe have remained relatively unfamiliar with the Natura 2000 network. Almost 8 in 10 29

30 respondents said they had never heard of Natura 2000 (78%; compared to 80% in 2007). It is remarkable in especial the low level of awareness in the UK, that is the highest among the European Countries as it can be seen in the following graphic: Source: Eurobarometer 2010: 43. The European Union key institutions responsible of the development and monitoring of the EU Biodiversity policy are the following four (Knill & Liefferink, 2007): 1) The European Commission: formed by 27 members (one from each country). Its principal roles are: proposing legislation to the Parliament and the Council, manage and implement EU policies and the budget, enforce European law (jointly with the Court of Justice) and represent the EU on the international stage. Within the Commission, the Directorate General for the Environment (DG Environment) is the responsible to protect, preserve and improve the environment for present and future generations. To achieve this it proposes policies that ensure a high level of environmental protection in the European Union and that preserve the quality of life of EU citizens. Furthermore, the DG makes sure that Member States correctly apply EU environmental law and finances projects that contribute to environmental protection across the EU. 2) The Council of the European Union: is the main decision making body. To the meetings attend the policy area minister from each Member State. 30

31 In the case of the Natura 2000, the environmental ministry from each country. The main responsibilities of the Council are among others: to pass European laws, jointly with the European Parliament and to conclude international agreements between the EU and other countries or international. 3) European Parliament: Only directly elected institution in the EU. Its main roles are passing European laws, together with the Council; democratic supervision and power of the purse. 4) European Court of Justice: Has one judge per member state. Its main roles are: make references for a preliminary ruling; actions for failure to fulfil an obligation; actions for annulment and actions for failure to act. At this institutional level where policy making is carried out, Sabatier (1986) recommends the establishment of clear and consistent policy objectives in order to guide the implementation process and provide an appropriate standard for evaluation. Moving now from the top to the bottom, the principal institutions and actors involved in the implementation of the Natura 2000 network in the Broads National Park are the following: 1) The Department of the Environment and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) is the Government Department responsible of the development of the UK Biodiversity Action Plan in order to preserve biodiversity and comply with European Directives and international agreements on biodiversity (DEFRA, 2) The Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Authority: In Britain many regulatory policies require parliamentary enactment but local authority implementation (Hill, 1993: 104). The Broads Authority was established through a special Act of Parliament (The Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Act) in 1988 and began operating as a Special Statutory Authority in It is the authority responsible of manage the Broads for the purposes of: conserving and enhancing the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the Broads; promoting opportunities for the understanding 31

32 and enjoyment of the special qualities of the Broads by the public; and protecting the interests of navigation. Furthermore, the Broads Act also requires to the Authority to have regard to the needs of agriculture and forestry, and the economic and social interests of those who live or work in the Broads (Broads Authority website 3) The Joint Environmental Committee (JNCC): is the public body that advises the UK Government and devolved administrations on UK-wide and international nature conservation. It is the responsible of selecting the SACs, working in partnership with other country conservation agencies (JNCC, 4) Natural England: is a non-departmental public body established under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act Its principal roles is to that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced, and managed for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development (Natural England, The objectives of the Natura 2000 Network. The Natura 2000 network is formed by two pieces of legislation. This are: the Birds Directive and the Habitats Directive. The later Habitats Directive aims to achieve a favourable conservation status for a long list of habitat types (Annex I) and species (Annex II), defined as of Community importance and incorporates all the requirements and species protected under the Birds Directive. Directives are not applicable at the national level (as regulations are), but have to be incorporated into the national law first (Falkner et al, 2004). In order to achieve this goal, and halt biodiversity loss by the year 2010, the Natura 2000 network was created as the centrepiece of EU biodiversity policy, to enable the 27 Member States to work together, above and beyond national boundaries, to manage and protect the listed vulnerable species and habitats across and within Europe. Incorporating both, the requirements of the Habitats (Directive 92/43/EEC) and the Birds Directive (Directive 79/409/EEC, 32

33 now amended as Directive 2009/147/EC), the Natura 2000 programme also fulfils a Community obligation under the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (EC, 2002) by constituting a pan-european network of designated Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) selected by member states under the Habitats Directive, and Special Protection Areas (SPAs) created under the requirements of the Birds Directive. The principal objectives of the Natura 2000 Network under the Habitats Directive are the following: 1) Maintain or restore European protected habitats and species listed in the Annexes I and II, at a favourable conservation status as defined in Articles 1 and 2. 2) Contribute to a coherent European ecological network of protected sites by designating Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) for habitats listed on Annex I and for species listed on Annex II. These measures are also to be applied to Special Protection Areas (SPAs) classified under Article 4 of the Birds Directive. 3) Ensure conservation measures are in place to appropriately manage SACs and ensure appropriate assessment of plans and projects likely to have a significant effect on the integrity an SAC. Projects may still be permitted if there are no other alternatives, and there are imperative reasons of overriding public interest. In those cases compensatory measures are necessary to ensure the overall coherence of the Natura 2000 network (Article 6). 4) Member States shall also encourage the management of features of the landscape that support the Natura 2000 network (Articles 3 and10); 5) Undertake surveillance of habitats and species (Article 11). 6) Ensure strict protection of species listed on Annex IV (Article 12 for animals and Article 13 for plants); and 7) Report on the implementation of the Directive every six years (Article 17). 33

34 Putting Natura 2000 into Practice. The creation of Special Areas Of Conservation (SACs) under the biodiversity policy of the EU has been carried out in different ways on Member States, as a direct consequence of the more flexible legal characteristic of the European Directives, which leave in the hands of member states the election of the implementation methodology (discretionary principle) in order to be easy the accommodation to the different national context across the EU, and the different governance models operating in each country (decentralised/centralised) (Burke, 1990, Jordan, 1999). The Habitats Directive and the Natura 2000 Network are based on the subsidiarity principle, which means that major responsibilities are allocated at the lowest-effective level (Nicolaidis & Howse,R 2001). Thus, it is up to member states to decide how best to conserve the sites that are identified as being of Community importance. Considering this, even though EU decision-making is done at a supranational level, the implementation system is still basically intergovernmental in nature (Jordan, 1999). Three main stages can be identified in the establishment of Natura 2000 (EC, 2009): 1) Scientific assessment at the national level. The selection has to be done based on scientific criteria collected by experts. The environmental governance structure of the EU engages member states in EU policymaking (Europeanisation) while at the implementation stage, the provisions of the directive make the Member States responsible for the designation of Natura 2000 sites and for their management, and thus policy becomes embedded in particularities of the nation states (nationalisation). In this way, the detailed work is delegated to different national agencies or, in the case of federal Member States, to the regions (Baker, 2003). 2) Selection of a list of sites of Community importance. This is done by the Commission considering the proposals made by member states and in closer collaboration with them and scientific experts. 3) Establishment of management regimes for the sites. Even if it is not a legal requirement, the directive recommends the implementation of management plans as a useful tool in determining what need to be done 34

35 to maintain or restore a site in a favourable conservation state. A particular characteristic of these plans is that as they are site specific they provide a vehicle for consultation with local interest groups, thereby ensuring that the fate of Natura 2000 site can be decided together and in a spirit of cooperation and co-management (EC, 2009: 5). *** Once that the introduction, literature review, methodology, explanation and description of the Natura 2000 network has been done, the following section is going to provide the main findings about the UK national context, implementation acts, resources available made available and obtained outcomes in the Broads National Park, in order to construct the baseline information for evaluate the implementation effectiveness of the Natuta 2000 programme. 35

36 4. RESULTS OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF NATURA 2000 NETWORK IN THE BROADS. The following section is going to deal with the results brought to the light through the research of this study. First of all, the main findings about the UK National Context are going to be described in order to see to what extent constitutes a factor affecting the implementation process. Following this, in order to evaluate in the discussion the implementation effectiveness of the Natura 2000 network in the Broads National Park, the implementation acts put into practice are going to be summarized, together with the resources made available and the final outcomes obtained after the implementation process UK National Context In 1970 Britain created the worlds first environmental ministry, the Department of the Environment (DoE) and thus, it was one of the pioneers countries in developing strategies and plans for environmental protection (Jordan & Liefferink, 2004). As a result of this, a wide range of national organizations as the Broads Authority, were created in the UK for managing environmental features. In this way, many of the institutions and organizations necessary for the implementation of the Natura 2000 programme existed already at the national level, in comparison to other countries where new institutions and organizations had to be created in order to comply with the EU Nature and Biodiversity Policy (Böerzel, 2001). This administrative context facilitated a favourable situation for the implementation of the Natura 2000 network. However, the UK remained sceptical to the EU Environmental policy, as they believed for a long time to have a better system and regulations than the ones developed by the Commission. As a direct consequence of this, negative dispositions as trying to block EU environmental policy or implementing just the minimum requirements of the directives were frequently common (Jordan & Liefferink, 2004). After 1990s the relations with the EU started to improve, and the UK became more involved in environmental policy making at the European level. However there exists still a strong euro sceptical position rooted within the country (Jordan & Liefferink, 2004). 36

37 The EU has had significant impacts on the UK national context. Jordan and Liefferink (2004) have defined some of the main impacts that Europeanisation has caused in the UK as the following: First of all, it has strongly Europeanized national legal structures through the transposition of community law and directives. Secondly, the EU has fostered the formation of a number of new structures and contributed indirectly to the creation of new organisations such as the Environment Agency. In addition, it forced structures such as the Department of the Environment (DoE) to adopt new working procedures and strategies, as well as new policy preferences (Jordan & Liefferink, 2004: 216). Finally, Europeanization has also modified and empowered the DoE and national environmental groups, giving them the opportunity to appeal to a higher authority. This, in turn, has contributed to inform the public through provisions as for example, for public access to information, which has increased the transparency of the implementation process (Jordan, 2006). Another relevant characteristic of the UK is that it is a centralised unitary state, and thus, it has less institutional veto players (generated by constitution) than other countries with different models of governance as for example, federal-decentraliased states, with more complex structures of self-government and actors involved (Tsebelis, 2002). Tsebelis (2002) defines veto players as: Individual or collective actors whose agreement is necessary for a change of the status quo. It follows that a change in the status quo requites a unanimous decision of all veto players (Tsebelis, 2002: 19). In addition, the UK has a majoritarian political system, characterised by adverse party politics between two great parties (liberals and conservatives), and thus, the UK has as well a low number of partisan veto players (generated by the political game) (Tsebelis, 2002). These two characteristics (low partisan and low institutional veto players) provided as well a favourable condition for the achievement of higher rates of policy implementation due to the lack of strong policy opposition. Furthermore, the UK follows the liberal economic doctrine and 37

38 thus, it is characterised by low levels of state interventionism (Fairbrass & Jordan, 2001). After carrying out the research, in the case of the Broads, there has not been found any evidence of strong opposition to the Natura 2000 programme by stakeholders, or institutional or partisan veto players. The implementation has been done in a direct way after the transposition to the national law of the Habitats Directive without any significant opposition. To sum up this point, the national context can affect the implementation process in different ways, undermining policy support or beneficing it. On the one hand, the principal characteristics of the national context that have affected in a negative way the implementation of the Natura 2000 network in the Broads have been an strong euro-scepticism as a result of a deep socio-cultural attachment to national sovereignty, and the liberal tradition of state noninterventionism. On the other hand, a low number of veto points existing as a result of the centralisation of the state, and the majoritarian political system have resulted favourable for the implementation of the Natura 2000 network (Tsebelis, 2002, Jordan & Liefferink, 2004:206) The Broads National Park The Norfolk and Suffolk Broads is considered the Britain's largest protected wetland and third largest inland waterway, with the status of a national park. The Broads is one of Europe's most important wetlands for nature conservation. It consists on a freshwater ecosystem composed by meandering rivers interconnecting areas of shallow water (Natural England, 2010). The surrounding habitats include large areas of botanically rich fens, which are the home of a high number or rare species as the Swallowtail butterfly, the Norfolk Hawker dragonfly and the Bittern. In addition, the Broads are rich in grazing marshes, wet woodlands, and aquatic plants and animals, especially birds and invertebrates that make of this national park one with the richest wildlife in the UK (Broads Authority website, 38

39 The high conservation value of the Broads has been recognised at national, European and international levels, through numerous conservation designations. Under national legislation, twenty eight sites within the Broads have been designated as Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), and many of these sites are also National and Local Nature Reserves (NNR and LNR). Moreover, all of the SSSIs network is also designated as internationally important for nature conservation under the European Habitats and Birds Directives, and the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance (Broads Authority website, It is of vital importance to conserve species and ecosystems first of all for its intrinsic value, this is, the inherent value that nature has by itself. Biodiversity matters in many different ways: environmental, ethical, emotional and economic (EC, 2010). Biodiversity regulates the climate, cleans the water, purifies the air and maintains the soils. Furthermore, it provides food and resources and thus, it is the basis upon which societies are built (EC, 2010). However, the care for biodiversity it is often prioritised from a more economic point of view. This is, conserving biodiversity in order to maintain long-term viability fisheries and agriculture for food production, as well as basic elements for different industrial processes and the production of new medicines (Baker 2003: 28). The Broads has been affected by increasing pressures from human activities in the last century. As consequence of this, habitat loss, degradation, pollution and fragmentation, of these wetlands have caused a significant reduction of habitats and species (Adam, 2007). In order to remedy these adverse impacts and protect, conserve and enhance the Broads, the site was designated as a Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and included into the European Natura 2000 network. The following point is going to summarize the measures put into place in order to conserve and restore this natural ecosystem. 39

40 4.2. Policy Objectives and Policy Outputs. After looking at the principal objectives and requirements of the Natura 2000 network and the outputs put into place in the Broads National Park, in order to achieve them, the following results have been found: 1) Transposition of the Directive: In the UK, the Habitats Directive has been transposed into national laws by means of the Conservation Regulations 1994 (as amended), and the Conservation Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1995 (as amended). On the 1 st of April 2010 The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (which are the principal means by which the Habitats Directive is transposed in England and Wales, and to a limited degree, Scotland) updated the legislation and consolidated all the many amendments which have been made to the Regulations since they were first created in 1994 (Miller,1997, and DEFRA, ). For the Habitats Directive, the UK Government provides a consensual line between the four countries (England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland), and decisions on means of implementation are taken by the devolved administrations (DEFRA, 2007). 2) Management Tools: The Broads National Park counts with a comprehensive management plan, fulfilling the recommendations stated in the Article 6 (1) of the Directive. The Broads Biodiversity Action Plan (Broads BAP) is the Broads Authority s response to the UK Biodiversity Action Plan for the fulfilment of the EU requirements stated in the Habitats Directive. The current Management Plan was published in 2004, and it sets out a long-term (20-year) aims for the future of the Broads, and shortterm (5-year) objectives to be addressed during the lifetime of the Plan. The Broads BAP is divided in two parts; the Broads Biodiversity Action Plan Framework Document and the Broads Biodiversity Action Plan Document. On the one hand, the former, describes the habitats and species of the Broads, and describes some case studies of partnership conservation projects. On the other hand, the Action Plan Document establishes the actions required by the Broads Authority for biodiversity 40

41 enhancement, working with partners over the next five years ( ) (Broads BAP, 2004). 3) Conservation Measures Art 6(1), implemented in order to maintain or restore European protected habitats and species listed in the Annexes I and II, at a favourable conservation status as defined in Articles 1 and 2: The Broads Authority started a broad restoration programme already in the 1970s to prevent further reduction in water quality and damage to the fragile aquatic habitats. Different projects were carried out since then by the Broads Authority as for example, the Barton Broads project, considered the second largest broads area has been under extensive management during the past ten years for enhancing wildlife and restore the water quality (Broads Authority, 2000). Currently, the latest Broads Biodiversity Action Plan Document (2009) provides guidance for future restoration and conservation works on the Broads. A part from the different projects for conservation and restoration following partnerships approaches like in the Trinity Broads, a partnership project working with Essex & Suffolk Water in order to restore the ecological status of the broad for the benefit of nature conservation, public water supply and recreation ( or the partnership management project of the Upper Thurne, a complex of water bodies that contain most extensive areas of fen and reedbeds and some of the rarest water plants and in the Broads ( The Broads Authority has carried out different strategies as: the Non-Native Species Control, the Sediment Management Strategy (2007) that demonstrates the challenge and commitment of managing the Broads waterways, and the latest Lake Restoration Strategy (2008), which completes the Sediment Management Plan and sets the future direction and priorities for the restoration of broads in order to continue to enhance their ecological quality while recognising the benefits of restoration for people. Furthermore, the strategy highlights the need of considering the risks of 41

42 climate change for biodiversity. I addition to these strategies, the first annual Action Plan is available for 2009/10, and includes an update of restoration projects completed in 2008/09 (Broads Authority, 4) Designating Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) for habitats listed on Annex I and for species listed on Annex II (Art.10): In the UK when it comes to implementation at the national level, Natura 2000 sites are proposed for selection by the statutory nature conservation agencies coordinated through the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNNC) in co-ordination with other country agencies. In this case, the Broads has been selected as a SAC by the JNCC, fulfilling the requirements of the Habitats (Annex I). The habitats/ecosystems that are a primary reason for the selection of the Broads as part of the Natura 2000 network have been identified by the JNCC as the following: Hard oligo-mesotrophic waters with benthic vegetation of Chara, Natural eutrophic lakes with Magnopotamion or Hydrocharition-type vegetation, Transition mires and quaking bogs, Calcareous fens with Cladium mariscus and species of the Caricion davallianae, Alkaline fens, and Alluvial forests (JNCC, 2010). Furthermore, in relation to the Annex II, the species that are primarily reason for the selection of this site as a SAC are the Desmoulin`s whorl snail (Vertigo moulinsiana) and the Fen orchid (Liparis loeselii) (JNCC, 2010). 5) Ensure conservation measures are in place to appropriately manage SACs and ensure the coherence of the European ecological network of protected sites by appropriate assessment of plans and projects likely to have a significant effect on the integrity of a SAC (Art 6). Projects may still be permitted if there are no alternatives, and there are imperative reasons of overriding public interest. In such cases compensatory measures are necessary to ensure the overall coherence of the Natura 2000 network (Article 6). Considering this, in the last 42

43 Report on the Implementation of the Habitats Directive, any project or plan for which compensation measures were necessary was recorded for the particular case of the Broads National Park (JNCC, 2007). 6) Member States shall also encourage the management of features of the landscape that support the Natura 2000 network (Articles 3 and 10): Within the Action Plan it has been included a strategy for the conservation and management of the distinctive landscape of the Broads. In addition, in June 2010 a draft Broads Plan for managing changing landscape was redacted and is currently under public consultation until the 13 th of August. Some of the principal objectives of this latest plan are the following (Draft Broads Plan, 2010: 15): a. Work with bodies responsible for highways and utilities to minimize the impacts of infrastructure and noise and light pollution on the broads. b. Protect heritage assets identified as being at risk and those identified as being locally important. c. Develop the whole valley strategy to identify and promote distinctive landscape character areas and deliver integrated project management in together with local communities. In addition, the Broads Authority has showed commitment with the principles of the European Landscape Convention (2000), which highlights the relevance of the landscape as a whole and not just the best bits (ELC, 2000). Furthermore, a landscape character assessment (LCA) of the Broads has been developed to provide advice on areas more or less vulnerable to change and strategic guidance on future management of the landscape (Small Fish, 2007). 7) Undertake surveillance of habitats and species (Article 11). The Broads Authority has carried out a survey of Water Plants and presented a report with the results of the 2006 water plant monitoring programme, covering 38 water bodies and 5 river stretches within the Broads. The 43

44 Norfolk Non-native Species Initiative is funding a survey of the Ant Valley looking for non-native species. Non-native plant species such as Japanese Knotweed and Himalayan Balsam spread rapidly, displacing native wild plants and flowers. Aquatic invasive plants like Floating Pennywort block channels and ponds, reducing light and oxygen and causing harm to native plants, fish and invertebrates. For these reasons, the Broads Authority started to control these species in order to conserve the local species characteristic of the Broads. In addition, every year an annual water plant survey is carried out (Broads Authority, 8) Measures taken to ensure protection of species (Arts.12 to 16) and avoid deterioration and disturbance of habitats and species Art 6 (2): Different techniques have been used to restore and improve water and habitat quality within the Broads, as for example, phosphorus control, suction dredging (removing mud from the bottom of the lakes and rivers), removal of fish, or biomanipulation (a way of giving water fleas a chance to graze the algae to low levels and clear the water), reduction of nutrients, including those from agricultural sources, and educating boat users about environmentally friendly boating practices ( Standard operation procedures have been developed in order to take into account the potential negative impacts of all these management activities on the Broads ( Furthermore, education and sustainable tourism has been promoted. 9) Education and Information Measures (Art.22): In order to promote education, the Broads Authority provides publications, answers enquires arranges schools visits and promote different type of activities as the 44

45 Forest School Courses for children, organised in partnership with Whitlingham Charitable Trust. In addition, The Broads Authority works with and supports a number of organizations in the Broads to provide environmental education, which together conform the Broads Environmental Education Network (BEEN Furthermore, the Broads Authority has produced educational fact files which are available online about various aspects of the Broads for GCSE level students, but they can also be used by teachers and university students ( 10) Report on the implementation of the Directive every six years (Art. 17). The monitoring of the SACs is carried out as it follows: those special features for which the site was designated are evaluated to determine whether they are in a good or better condition. The nature conservation element which is analysed is in this way not the site itself, but the feature (e.g. habitat, species) for which it was designated (Williams,2006). Sites usually have one, two, or several interest features on them. Key characteristics of the feature (e.g. supporting processes, extent, quality,) are identified and targets set for each. After this, each attribute is then measured and compared against the target value set. If all the targets are met, the feature is in favourable condition (Williams, 2006). The first 6 year report on common standards monitoring was launched on 12 June It assesses the geology, species, and habitats on over 6,000 of the UK s protected areas, including the Broads, based on around 13,000 assessments made in the past six years (Williams, 2006). In addition to this national report, the Broads Authority launches Annual Reports summarizing its achievements of the year Implementation Resources. Funding and other Economic Resources for the implementation of Natura 2000 (Art.8): Monitoring, compliance and enforcement can be very 45

46 costly and time-consuming, and thus, problems may arise if inadequate funding prevents regulatory agencies from carrying out them in a proper way (Carter, 2007). Considering this, one of the main critics that have been done to the Natura 2000 network is that it is mainly focused on mapping and designating the sites without providing appropriate resources and management methods for its effective implementation (Baker, 2003: 34). The implementation of the Natura 2000 network is in part funded by the Financial Instrument for the Environment (LIFE) (Regulation 1973/92/EC) under LIFE Nature Budget ( However, Member States have also to designate a considerable amount of national resources to put it into practice and monitor its effectiveness. Some examples of projects that have been carried out on the Broads thanks to the European LIFE funds are the following (Broads Authority funding 1) Restoration of the Norfolk Broads: Carried out between 1993 and This LIFE project developed different techniques for restoration, in order to improve the understanding of the factors affecting the recovery of the broads. It was primarily focused on experimental management and research for ecological lake restoration. The project had a total budget of 1million, half of it funded by the EU. 2) Urgent Action for the Bittern: The principal objective of this project was to improve the conservation status of the bittern by expanding and enhancing the available breeding habitat at different sites around East Anglia. The total project budget was 1million, half of it EU funded. An extension of this successful project, The Bittern II, was completed in ) New Wetland Harvest project: The aim or this project, promoted by the Broads Authority in 1997, was to develop, establish and test new technology that would enable the harvesting and use of natural materials from wet reed-beds and fens. The project permitted the economic large scale cutting of wet fen using environmentally friendly low ground pressure machinery in order to mitigate and reduce the environmental 46

47 impacts on the Broads. The project budget was over 1 million with an EU contribution of 492,000. The expenditure and income of the Broads Authority was presented in the last Annual Report as the following: Source: Broads Authority Annual Report , p.16. A part from these economic resources the Broads Authority counts with 21 members elected by the local authorities and structured into several committees. The Countryside Management and Waterways are the principal ones concerned about biodiversity. These committees hold regular meetings to 47

48 make decisions on or consult on specific matters. In addition, the Broads Authority has been beneficed by intense volunteer cooperation with the management of the Broads. Giving an example, in 2008 nearly 250 volunteers participated in conservation activities (BA Annual Report, 2009:8). Furthermore, considering the infrastructures, the Broads Authority has a new green office building, the Dragonfly House, where all the activities, meetings and work of the have been centralized for a more efficient work (BA Annual Report, 2009) Policy Outcomes. The Natura 2000 network implementation outcomes found during the development of this study were mainly presented within the annual reports: The results of the Broads Annual Water Plant Monitoring Report (2006) demonstrate changes in plant species diversity and abundance. Where lake restoration practices such as biomanipulation and sediment removal were undertaken, the ecological conditions have considerably improved. The report also states that the continuous phosphorus reduction from sewage treatment works discharges have been beneficial for water plants. These positive responses demonstrate some of the benefits achieved thanks to the lake management and restoration strategies (Hoare and Kelly, 2006). However, the report concludes that much more restoration work is required to improve the condition of the shallow lakes in Broadland to a more favourable ecological status. Since the majority of broads surveyed were classified in the poorest category for water plants growth and have been in that condition since recording began in 1983 (Hoare and Kelly, 2006: 32). In the last Broads Authority Annual Report the most important achievement for biodiversity was presented as the improvements in water quality. The best results were obtained among others, from the Broads Authority s Millennium Project, Clearwater 2000, which used new techniques to restore life into the dying Barton Broad. This report concludes that after twenty years of restoration work and water management has finally paid off with

49 proving to be the best year for water plants since the middle of the last century (Broads Authority Annual Report,2009:4). However, the lasts Broads Authority Annual Water Plant Survey (2009) contradicts the annual report in some points. It states that only some progress has being made achieving several of the lake ecological and water quality targets through the Lake Restoration Strategy. In addition, three years after the 2006 annual report, it concludes again that much work remains to be done across the Broads to bring degraded broads back to health, in line with national and EU drivers and to increase and subsequently maintain the diversity of those broads lacking in species richness (Williams & Hare, 2009: 3). Unfortunately, during the research of this study, apart from these Broads Authority annual reports, any other official publication on monitoring results dealing with the outcomes on the specifically habitats and species listed on the Annex II (species) of the Habitats Directive that have been the primary reason for selecting the Broads National Park as a Special Conservation Area were found available online. 49

50 5. DISCUSSION Once the implementation acts, resources, national context and outcomes of the Natura 2000 Network in the Broads National Park has been described and explained, the following point is going to carry out a discussion on the results obtained in order to assess the effectiveness of the implementation process. If the policy outputs are compared with the Natura 2000 network requirements, the results obtained in the Broads are very positive overall, as any relevant implementation deficit has been found in the results obtained from the performance indicators used in this study (Pressman and Wildavsky, 1984). This not surprising, but expected result, confirms the good reputation that the UK has about the implementation of EU regulations in the particular case of the Broads National Park (Hanley, 1998). The transposition of the Habitats Directive, the centre piece of the Natura 2000 network, into the national level has been done correct and on time in 1994, when the Broads was designated as a Special Area of Conservation. The existence of this Directive provides a justification of the implementation approach chosen for this dissertation. Following Sabatier (1986), the top-down approach fits better when it takes place in a context where there exists a dominant piece of legislation structuring the situation this is in this case, the Habitats Directive. The lists of habitats and species contained in the annexes of the Directive included a significant number present in the UK, which were not protected or managed before. In this way the conservation status of habitats and species in the Broads National Park was improved, protecting a considerable number of new species (Sharp,1998). Furthermore, a wide range of measures for appropriate protection, conservation and restoration of habitats and species listed in Annex I and II have also been established, like the Lake Restoration Strategy and the Sediment Management Strategy, together with 50

51 specific different projects for Barton Broad, Upper Thurne and Trinity Broads among others. Environmental Standards for guiding the operating proceedings of the conservation works and minimise adverse impacts in these areas have also been developed. Moreover, the coherence of the ecological network was maintained by promoting sustainable tourism and boating. In addition, a Broads Management Plan has been developed, as well as a Landscape Management Strategy. Surveillances of habitats and species have been carried out, and annual reports have been produced by the Broads Authority. Furthermore, considerable efforts have been done on education through the creation of the Broads Environmental Education Network and the Forest Schools Courses. Considering all of this, there is no doubt, and it can be concluded that the policy outputs have been implemented in an effective and correct way following the requirements of the Natura 2000 network. LEGAL REQUIREMENTS IMPLEMENTED NOT IMPLEMENTED Restoration Activities V Conservation Works V Protection Measures for V Habitats and Species Management V Compensation Measures N/A Landscape Management V Surveillances V Education V Report on Implementation V Table 4. Check-List of the Habitats Directive Requirements Implemented in the Broads. Source: Own table. Looking at the implementation resources, the Broads Authority, counts with an efficient organisation of trained and skilful officials, infrastructures, and a considerable number of volunteers. In addition it perceives funds from the national government, and the LIFE budget of the EU which have facilitated the development of different conservation projects, allowing the implementation of 51

52 the Natura 2000 programme. An increase of the perceived incomes will be necessary and very beneficial as the current budget is not extremely large. An increase on the budget will certainly accelerate the restoration works and facilitate the achievement of better implementation results. However, after the general elections of this year 2010, which gave the victory to the Conservative party, the national funds are very likely to be reduced in the future rather than increase. On the one hand, due to the Conservatives electoral programme that is going to reduce the amount of public spending, and this in turn will affect conservation programmes as the Natura 2000; and on the other hand, due to the current global economic crisis. Consequently, these changes in the socioeconomic conditions at the national and international level will probably substantially undermine the political support for the Natura 2000 programme (Sabatier, 1986). The national context of the UK, despite of never have been completely committed to the European integration process, has resulted favourable in the case of the implementation of the Natura 2000 Network in the Broads National Park, mainly because two factors. On the one hand, the national centralisation structure makes implementation straightforward and reduces the number of veto players able to oppose to this policy (Tsebelis, 2002); and, on the other hand, the UK has been beneficed to a certain extent by its pioneering history in environmental matters. When the implementation the Natura 2000 network became a EU legal requirement, some of the necessary institutions, as the Broads Authority, existed already at the national level, facilitating the goodness of fit of this programme (Böerzel,2003). However, the euro-sceptic character of the UK has also affected in a negative way the implementation process, in special before 1990s, when implementing was carried out complying only with the minimum requirements and, in turn lowering the quality of the process in many occasions and giving to the UK the reputation of the dirty man of Europe (Lowe & Ward, 1998). Even if after 1990s the UK became more involved into the EU policy process, uploading some ideas and becoming more committed, the euro-scepticism is still rooted in the British society. This Euro-scepticism can be considered as the one of the main reasons for the citizen levels of disinformation in the UK about the Natura 52

53 2000 network showed by the last Eurobarometer Having a look to these data, it results evident, that not enough efforts have been done in order to communicate and provide information about this EU programme (see page 30). Regarding to the policy outcomes, unfortunately but expected, not enough information has been found about the effects or results of the implementation acts put into practice on the Broads National Park in order the fulfil the requirements of the Natura 2000 network. There is a considerable lack of information in special on the consequences for habitats and species listed on Annex I and II of the Directive. In addition, the Annual reports provided by the Broads Authority are not very specific, and they do not provide enough details on biodiversity aspects. As consequence of this, it is not possible to evaluate in a proper and systematic way the efficiency of the policy outputs looking at the reduced amount of information presented in the annual reports. Nevertheless, if only these reports are considered, the results showed by them demonstrate a steadily improvement on the lakes conditions, specially on water quality and aquatic plants due to the conservation and restoration efforts made by the Broads Authority. However, as the Annual Plant Reports conclude, too much work is still needed to be carried out in order to restore and conserve the biodiversity of the Broads. The little improvements achieved cannot be considered enough after all the investment and implementation acts put into place in the Broads in order to halt biodiversity loss. Having the implementation acts carried out in an effective way, resources available, and low institutional and partisan veto points it would be reasonable to expect favourable results of the implementation of the Natura 2000 network (Tsebelis, 2002). However, restoring habitats and recovering species is a biological process that requires a considerable amount of time and investment, and even this does not guarantee that it always will to work. In especial, Wetlands restoration has a significant risk of failure, due to its extreme sensitivity, even when the restoration works are undertaken with great care and diligence (Mitsch & Gosselink, 2000). Thus, biodiversity loss and environmental degradation are problems that cannot be cannot be always solved and in 53

54 special in the short term, only by implementing a programme as in other policy areas. Consequently, in terms of policy outcomes it can be concluded that the implementation of the Natura 2000 network has not been yet effective enough as it didn t achieve yet a favourable conservation status nor halted biodiversity loss by This, in turn, means that the policy outputs even if effectively implemented they have not been efficient enough, as they have not achieved the desired policy outcomes. Further efforts, resources, strategies and monitoring should be developed and put into practice in order to achieve the desired results and meet the Natura 2000 programme objectives. The methodology used for this study has resulted very useful for the evaluation of policy outputs, as it provided a lot of information about the objectives and legal requirements of the Natura 2000 network, comparing them with the implementation acts put into practice in the Broads National Park. However, the methodology had also some limitations. It was useful for collecting information about the national context, policy outputs, resources and outcomes, but it was not very useful for explaining the causes underlying these factors, responsible of outputs inefficiency. Thus, the performance indicators used for this study had some limitations. First, policy outputs showed how effectively the acts required by the Natura 2000 network have been implemented, but not how efficient have they been. Second, policy outcomes showed the efficiency of policy outputs, but they are bounded by the limited amount of baseline information. Third, resources made available provide a favourable situation for effective, but they do not guarantee the efficiency of their investment. Finally, the national context provides information about the circumstances surrounding the implementation of the Natura 2000 programme, but it is difficult to measure the extent to which these circumstances have influenced and affected the implementation process. If this study counted with more time and resources it would also have been very useful to analyse the role of policy implementers in order to assess implementation effectiveness. Because their preferences, values, motivations, dispositions, comprehension of the policy and the level of discretion for define 54

55 and modify the original objectives involved in the implementation process, are also significant factors affecting the policy implementation process (Lipsky, 1980, and Meter & Horn, 1975:472). In this way, in order to have a complete understanding of the implementation process, it is important to bear in mind and analyse the capacity of the local authorities and target groups to evolve (Wildavsky and Majone, 1979) in order to create an effective governance context based on negotiation and cooperation, for dealing with the biodiversity problem in a more legitimate and democratic way (Paavola, 2005, Peters, 1995). However, this type of analysis will require the use of a Bottom-Up implementation approach which was not the original aim of this dissertation. 55

56 6. CONCLUSIONS To sum up, the main conclusions obtained after the development of this study about the implementation effectiveness of the Natura 2000 Network in the Broads Natural Park can be listed as the following: 1. After the systematic analysis of the implementation acts (outputs) and their comparison with the ones required by the Natura 2000 Network, the results of the study have showed an effective implementation of this programme in the Broads National Park, as it was expected to be in a country like the UK with a good reputation in EU policy implementation (Hanley, 1998), in special, after the 1990s (Lowe & Ward, 1998). Therefore, any significant implementation gaps have been found for the legal requirements of the Habitats Directive embedded into the Natura 2000 network. 2. However, the policy outputs have not achieved the desired goals of the EU Nature and Biodiversity. They didn t achieve a favourable conservation status nor halted biodiversity loss by Despite the effective implementation of policy outputs, they have not resulted efficient enough, as only little improvements in water quality and some areas as the Barton Broads have been produced. 3. The economic resources available from the national government and the European LIFE funds have been invested in carrying out many restorations projects, which have helped to implement the requirements of the Natura 2000 programme. However, these investments can to be considered enough looking at the final results, and consequently more funding is required. 56

57 4. The national context has resulted favourable overall for implementation, in special after 1990s when the UK became more involved in the EU project (Lowe & Ward, 1998). The governmental centralisation structure and the majoritarian party system produced a low number of veto players showing opposition to the Natura 2000 Network in the Broads. In addition having some institutions already created at the national level has been positive for the implementation process, facilitating to put into practice the Natura 2000 programme (Böerzel, 2001). However, still nowadays the national context is characterised by strong levels of euro-scepticism which act as a detrimental factor for policy implementation (Jordan, 1999). In special because the detachment that it produces, lowers the levels of public interest and increases the public disinformation about the Natura 2000 project which in turn, reduces the policy support (Eurobaromenter 2010). 5. In addition, the study has demonstrated that in the Broads, even after having all the implementation acts put into practice in an effective way, with resources made available, and a general favourable national context, all these efforts did not guarantee the outputs efficiency and the automatic consecution of the EU Nature 2000 programme objectives aimed at the resolution of the biodiversity problems. 6. Furthermore, the empirical evidence of this study has identified the existence of different factors interfering with the implementation process that can limit the results of the investments and policy outputs. First, it is important to bear in mind that conservation policy deals with very sensible biological processes which require a considerable amount to time, resources and strategies to be recovered and healed (Mitsch & Gosselink, 2000). However, sometimes, even after all these efforts the success is not always achieved. Second, the national context matters as it affects in different positive and negative ways the implementation process. It determines the number of veto players involved in the implementation phase, the direction of the implementation process, the 57

58 way in which implementation is carried out, and the attachment to the EU policies. Finally, the resources made available also affect implementation by promoting or limiting, the number of projects that can be carried out. 7. The Top-Down approach has been very useful for selecting the assessment tools of this study, and to create the performance indicators in order to evaluate the implementation effectiveness of the Broads. However, it has demonstrated to have its limits. In special overlooking at the actors involved in the policy process at the bottom level, as consequence of understanding the political process in a rigid top-down way. As it has been explained, the Natura 2000 programme does not follow a classic approach of strict nature protected areas where all human activities are systematically excluded (Sundseth, 2008). Instead, it recognised the important role of man in nature and fosters partnership approaches for a more efficient management of the nature reserves (EC,2009:3). Thus, the main problem and limitation of the Top-Down approach is that it overlooks the processes happening at these lower levels of action, where actors interact, adopting adaptive strategies to the specific contexts, characterized by commitment, negotiation and consensus, allowing the reformulation and the reimplementation of the policy taking into account the local context (Barret & Fudge, 1981). 8. Finally, the principal limitations of this study for assessing effective implementation have been the incomplete data provided by member states and the Commission about policy outcomes; the limitations of carrying out the analysis using just one case study which does not permit to generalised the obtained results; the limitations of using secondary research rather than primary research, which reduces the amount of information obtained; the limitations of the performance indicators, and the inherent limitations of the top-down analysis which does not consider the actors preferences and interactions having place at lower organizational level and affecting the implementation process. 58

59 7. RECOMMENDATIONS Having provisions for public access to information in the Directives has been demonstrated to be not enough. A general recommendation for implementers suggested by this study is to provide more information for the stakeholders, not only about the biological aspects of the Broads, but also about the objectives of the Natura 2000 Network promoted by the EU. This will increase the stakeholder knowledge about the EU Nature and Biodiversity Policy by informing them about the aims of the Natura 2000 programme and involving them in this European project. This might have a positive effect in the long run, reducing euro-scepticism levels by increasing the levels of understanding of the EU scope. Finally, as recommendation for further research, this study could be more complete if it used a combination of the Top-Down and Bottom-Up approaches, considering not only the vertical direction of implementation, but also all the networks and actor interactions affecting this stage of the policy process. In addition, primary research, as interviews with the Broads Authority will provide more information that will allow a better triangulation of the data, increasing the validity and credibility of the results. 59

60 REFERENCES Adam, D. (2007) Norfolk Broads could vanish, wildlife group warns in The Guardian, Wednesday 3 October 2007 available at: last accessed 05/05/2010 Ant Valley Non-Native Species Survey, available at last accessed 3/06/2010. Araujo, M.B., Nogue s-bravo, D., Reginster, I., Rounsevell,M., Whittaker, R.J. (2008) Exposure of European biodiversity to changes in human-induced pressures in Environmental Science and Policy, 11, pp Bache, I. and Flinders, M. (2004) Multi-Level Governance, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Baker, S. (2003) The dynamics of European Union biodiversity policy: interactive, functional and institutional logics, in Environmental Politics, 12:3, pp Bardach, E. (1977) Implementation Game: What happens after a bill becomes a law. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press. Barret, S. and Fudge, C (1981) Policy and Action: essays on the implementation, London: Methuen. Benson, D. and Jordan, A. (2007) Environemtal Politics in Multi-Level Governance Systems in The Politics of the Environment: A survey. London: Routledge. Berman, P (1980) Thinking about programmed and adaptive implementation: Matching strategies to situations in Ingram, H.M and Mann,D.E Why Policies Succeed or Fail. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications. Böerzel, T.A (2003) Environmental Leaders and Laggards in Europe: Why there is (not) a Southern Problem. Aldershot: Ashgate. 60

61 Böerzel, T.A. (2001) Non-Compliance in the European Union. Pathology or Statistical Artifact? European University Institute: Robert Schuman Centre of Advanced Studies. Böerzel, T.A. (2006) Participation through Law enforcement: the case of European Union in Comparative Political Studies 39 (1): Börzel, Tanja A., (2000) Why There Is No 'Southern Problem': On Environmental Leaders and Laggards in the European Union. In: Journal of European Public Policy 7(1) Broads Authority (2000) From Darkness to Light: The Restoration of Barton Broads available at: last accessed 27/06/2010. Broads Authority Lake Restoration Strategy for the Broads (2008) available at last accessed 29/05/2010. Broads Authority Sediment Management Strategy (2007) available at last accessed 29/05/2010 Broads Authority Statement of Accounts 2009/2010. Report by Head of Finance 25 June Agenda Item Nº15. Broads Biodiversity Action Plan (2009) available at: last accessed 24/06/2010. Browne, A. and Wildavsky, A. (1984) Should Evaluation Become Implementation in Pressman, J. And Wildavsky, A. Implementation, 3 rd Edition. Berkeley: University of California Press. Bulmer, S., and Radaelli, C (2004) The Europeanization of National Policy? Europeanization Online Papers, No. 1/2004. Burke, J.P. (1990) Policy Implementation and the Responsible Exercise of Discretion (1990) in Palumbo, D.J, and Calista, D.J Implementation and the Policy Process: Opening up the black box. New York: Greenwood Press. Carter,N (2007) Policy Instruments and Implementation in The Politics of the Environment, 2 nd Edition. Cambridge University Press. 61

62 Commission of the European Communities (2002) Commissions Working Document on Natura Conelly, J. and Smith, G. (2003) European Integration in Politics and the Environment, Second Edition, London: Routledge. Convention on Biological Diversity (1992) available at: last accessed 17/06/2010 Crabbé, A., & Leroy, P. (2008). The handbook of environmental policy evaluation. London: Earthscan. Department of the Environment and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) (2007) Conserving Biodiversity The UK Approach, London: DEFRA Publications. Directive on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora (1992) available at: _en.htm, last accessed 02/02/10. Draft Broads Plan Managing a Changing Landscape: A Strategic Plan to Manage the Broads Draft for Public Consultation 7 June August EU Biodiversity Action Plan (2006) Halting the loss of biodiversity loss by 2010 and beyond available at: en.pdf,last accessed 10/03/2010. Eurobarometer (March 2010) Attitudes of Europeans towards the issue of Biodiversity: Analytical Report Wave 2. Survey requested by the DG Environment and coordinated by DG Communication. European Commission (2006) Consolidated Version of the Treaty on European Union and of the Treaty Establishing the European Community, available at the Official Journal of the European Union, DF, last accessed: 16/04/2010. European Commission (EC) (2009) Natura 2000: Conservation in Partnership Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. 62

63 European Landscape Convention (2000) available at last accessed 23/04/2010. Fairbass, J. and Jordan, A (2001) Protecting Biodiversity in the European Union: national barriers and European Opportunities? in Journal of European Policy 8:4 Agoust 2001: Fairbass, J. and Jordan, A (2001a) European Union Environmental Policy and the UK Government: A Passive Observer or a Strategic Manager Environmental Politics, 10:2, pp Falkner, G., Hartlapp, M., and Treib, O (2007) Worlds of Compliance: Why leading approaches to EU Implementation are only Some-time true theories in JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies Volume 46 Issue 2, Pages Falkner, G., Hartlapp, M., Leiberm,S., and Treib, O. (2004) Non- Compliance with EU Directives in Member States: Opposition through the Backdorr? in West European Politics, 27:3, pp Falkner, Gerda/Oliver Treib/Miriam Hartlapp/Simone Leiber, (2005) Complying with Europe: EU Harmonisation and Soft Law in the Member States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fitzgerald A.L., and Stronza, L.A. (2009) Applied Biodiversity Science: Bridging Ecology, Culture and Governance for Effective Conservation in Interciencia, Aug 2009, Vol.34, Nº8. Glachant, M. (2001) Implementing European Environmental Policy: The Impacts of Directives in the Member States. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd. Graham, J., Amos, B., Plumptre,T. (2003) Governance Principles for Protected Areas in the 21 st Century Institute on Governance, Otawa. Hanley, N (1998) Britain and the European Policy Process in Lowe, P. and Ward, S. British Environmental Policy and Europe, London: Routledge. Hargove, E.C. (1975) The Missing Link. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. Hartlapp, M. And Falkner,G. (2009) Problems of Operationalization and Data in EU Compliance Research in European Union Politics, 10;

64 Henle,K., Alard, D., Clitherow, J., Cobb,P., Firbank, L., Kull,T., McCracken, D., Moritz,A.F.R., Niemelä, J., Rebane,D., Wascher, D., Watt,A., and Young, J. (2008) Identifying and managing the conflicts between agriculture and biodiversity conservation in Europe A review in Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, Volume 124, Issues 1-2. Pages Hill, M (1993) Policy Process in the modern capitalist state Hill, M (1997) Implementation Theory: Yesterday s issue? in Policy and Politics. Vol.25, nº4. Hill, M. and Hupe, P (2003) Implementing Public Policy: Governance in theory and practice. London: Sage Publications. Hjern, B. and Porter, D (1997) Implementation Structures, a new unit of administrative analysis in Hill, M. The Policy Process: A Reader. London: Harvester. Wheatsheaf. Hoare, D. and Kelly. A (2006) Broads Annual Water Plant Monitoring Report. Broads Authority Publications. Holzinger, K., Knill,C., Schäfer,A. (2002) European Environmental Governance in Transition Preprints Max-Planck-Projekgruppe Recht der Gemeinschaftsgïter, Bonn. Hood, C. (1976) The Limits of Administration. Chischester: Wiley. Joint Nature Conservation Committee (2007) Second Report by the UK under Article 17 on the implementation of the Habitats Directive from January 2001 to December Peterborough: JNCC. Available at: last accessed 26/06/2010. Joint Nature Conservation Committee (2010) The Broads available at: 77, last accessed 18/06/2010. Joint Nature Conservation Committee The Broads: SACs Selection available at: 77, last accessed 5/03/2010. Joint Nature Conservation Committee The Habitats Directive: Selection of SACs in UK available at: last accessed 5/03/

65 Jordan, A (?) The Environmental Case for Europe: Britain s European Environmental Policy CSERGE Working Paper EDM Jordan, A (2001) The European Union: an Evolving system of multi-level governance...or government? in Policy and Politics, vol 29, nº2, pp Jordan, A. (1999) Editorial Introduction: the construction of a multi-level environmental governance system Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 17 (1), pp Jordan, A. (2006) Environmental Policy in Bache, I and Jordan, A. The Europeanization of British Politics, Palgrave. Jordan, A. and Liefferink, D. (2004) The United Kingdom in Environmental Policy in Europe: The Europeanization of National Environmental Policy, London, Routledge. Knaap, G. J. and Kim, T.J. (1998). Introduction: Environmental program evaluation. Framing the subject, identifying issues, in Knaap, G.J. and Kim, T.J. (Eds.), Environmental program evaluation. A primer. Urbana USA: University of Illinois Press. Knill, C. and Liefferink, D. (2007) Implementation Effectiveness in EU Environmental Policy in Environmental Politics in the European Union, Manchester: Manchester University Press. Knoepfel, P., Larrue,C., Varone, F., and Hill, M. (2007) Public Policy Analysis, Bristol: Policy Press. Ledoux,L., Crooks,S., Jordan, A., Turner, K.R. (2000) Implementing EU Biodiversity Policy: UK Experiences in Land Use Policy 17, pp LIFE Budget available at last accessed 26/05/2010. Lipsky, M (1980) Street Level Bureaucracy, New York: Russel-Sage. Lockwood, M. (2010) Good Governance for terrestrial protected areas: a framework, principles and performance outcomes in Journal of Environmental Management 91, pp Lowe, P. and Ward, S. (1998) Britain in Europe: Themes and issues in national environmental policy in Lowe, P. and Ward, S. British Environmental Policy and Europe, London: Routledge. 65

66 Majone, G. (2002) The European Commission: The limits of Centralization and the Perils of Parliamentarization in Governance 15 (3), pp Mastenbroek, E. (2005) EU Compliance: Still a Black Hole? in Journal of European Public Policy, 12: 6, pp Mazmanian, D.A. and Sabatier, P.A (1983) Implementation and Public Policy.Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman. McCormick, J. (2001) Nature and Natural Resources in Environmental Policy in the European Union, New York: Palgrave. Mickwitz, P., & Birnbaum, M. (2009) Key insights for the design of environmentalevaluations, in Binbaum M. and Mickwitz, P. (Eds.) Environmental Program and Policy Evaluation: Addressing Methodological Challenges. Jossey Bass. Millenium Ecosystem Assessment (2003). Available at: _en.htm, last accessed 12/02/10 Miller, C. (1997) Attributing Priority to Habitats in Environmental Values, 6.pp Mitsch, W.J., and J.G. Gosseelink (2000) Wetlands, 3 rd Edition. John Wiles and Sons, New York. Naural England (2010) The Broads National Park, available at alparks/broads.aspx, last accessed: 12/04/2010 Nicolaidis & Howse,R (2001) The Federal Vision: Legitimacy and Levels of Governance in the United States and the European Union. Oxford University Press. Paavola, J. (2005) Environmental Justice and Governance: Theory and Lessons from the implementation of the European Union s Habitats Directive in Environmental Sciences 1(1): Peters, B.G (1995) Modelos alternativos del proceso de la política pública: de abajo hacia arriba o de arriba hacia abajo in Gestión Política y Pública, Vol. IV, Nº 2, 2 nd Semester. Pridham, G. (1996) 'Environmental policies and problems of European legislation in southern Europe, South European Society and Politics 1(1):

67 Pullin, A., Báldi, A., Can,E.O., Dieterich, M., Kati, V., Livoreil,B., Lövei, G., Miók, B., Nevin,O., Selva,N., Sousa-Pinto, I. (2008) Conservation Focus on Europe: Major Conservation Policy Issues that Need to be informed by conservation science in Conservation Biology, Vol. 23, Nº4, pp Rauchmayer, F., Berghöfer, A., Omann,I., and Zikos, D. (2009) Examining Processes or/and Outcomes? Evaluation Concepts in European Governance of Natural Resources in Environmental Policy and Governance 19, pp Viewed: Rosamond, B (2000) Theories of European Integration, New York: Palgrave. Rosendal, G.K (2001) Impacts of overlapping international regimes: the case of biodiversity in Global Governance, vol 7 (1). Sabatier, A.P (1986) Top-Down and Bottom-Up Approaches to Implementation Research: A Critical Analysis and Suggested Synthesis in Journal of Public Policy, 6, Issue 1, pp Sharp, R. (1998) Responding to Europeanisation: A Governmental Perspective in Lowe,P. And Ward, S. British Environmental Policy and Europe, London: Routledge. Small Fish (2007) Landscape Protection and Enhancement p.48 in Sustainability Appraisal: Issues and Options Assessment. Sundseth, K. (2008) Natura 2000: Protecting Europe s Biodiversity, Information Press: Oxford. The Broads Authority Education Scheme, available at: last accessed: 09/05/2010. The Broads Authority Official Site available at last accessed 15/07/2010. The Broads Authority Sustainable Tourism available at: last accessed 27/05/2010. The Broads Environmental Standard Operating Procedures available at: last accessed 15/05/

68 Toshkov, D. (2007) 'In search of the worlds of compliance: culture and transposition performance in the European Union', Journal of European Public Policy, 14: 6, Van Meter, D. and Van Horn, C.E. (1975) The policy implementation process: a conceptual framework in Administration and Society, 6 (4), pp Wildavsky, A. and Majone, G. (1979) Implementation as Evolution in Pressman, J.L and Wildavsky, A. Implementation. Berkeley: University of California Press. Williams, D. and Hare, D. (2009) Broads Authority Annual Water Plant Survey (2009). Report by Conservation Officer (Waterways). Navigation Committee. 3 June Agenda Item No.12. Williams, J.M., ed. (2006) Common Standards Monitoring for Designated Sites: First Six Year Report. Peterborough, JNCC. Yin, R. K (2003) Case Study Research. Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage. 68

69 ANNEXES 69

70 70

71 Broads Location Map. Source: The Broads Authority. 71

72 72