The Construction of Legitimacy in European Nature Policy: Expertise and Participation at the Service of Cost-Effectiveness

This is a revised personal version of the article published in Environmental Politics. Please cite as: Turnhout, E., Behagel, J., Ferranti, F., & Beunen, R. (2015). The construction of legitimacy in European nature policy: expertise and participation in the service of costeffectiveness. Environmental Politics, 24 (3): 461-480. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2015.1008260. More papers on governance can be found on www.governancetheory.com The Construction of Legitimacy in European Nature Policy: Expertise and Participation at the Service of Cost-Effectiveness Esther Turnhout, Jelle Behagel, Francesca Ferranti, Raoul Beunen Esther Turnhout, Forest and Nature Conservation Policy Group, Wageningen University. Droevendaalsesteeg 3, 6708 PB, Wageningen, The Netherlands, +31 317486205, esther.turnhout@wur.nl. Jelle Behagel, Forest and Nature Conservation Policy Group, Wageningen University. Droevendaalsesteeg 3, 6708 PB, Wageningen, The Netherlands +31 317484877, jelle.behagel@wur.nl. Francesca Ferranti, Nature&Society Consultancy in Research and Publishing, Dreikoenigstr. 47, 79102 Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany. ferranti.francesca.85@gmail.com. Raoul Beunen, Open Universiteit. PO Box 2960, 6401 DL Heerlen, The Netherlands, raoul.beunen@ou.nl. ABSTRACT In environmental governance, the European Union draws on norms of effectiveness, decentralisation and participation to ensure that its policies and regulations are considered legitimate. In this article, we analyse how the construction of legitimacy changed over time in Natura 2000. Our findings show that although the norms of participation and decentralisation are increasingly evoked to address the needs of stakeholders and member states in the implementation and financing of Natura 2000, the norm of effectiveness continues to dominate the construction of legitimacy. Effectiveness first acquired its meaning in the context of a science-based approach to Natura 2000 to emphasise the importance of achieving its conservation objectives. More recently, it has become increasingly re-articulated as costeffectiveness, which reflects a growing influence of neoliberal discourse. We conclude the article by discussing the implications of our findings for the legitimacy of European environmental governance. Keywords: Natura 2000; discourse; biodiversity; technocracy; neoliberalism; democratic norms Natura 2000 and the question of legitimacy European environmental governance is often criticised for suffering from a democratic deficit. In part, this corresponds to larger trends where European institutions are criticised for not applying the same democratic standards and procedures as the parliamentary democracies of its member states (Wils 1994, Beunen 2006). However, most scholars on EU decision-making hold that the European Union (EU) represents a sui generis as it does not fit into any accepted category of government (Sbragia 1993, p. 24). Accordingly, EU scholars have argued that its democratic legitimacy is realised by other principles than those of parliamentary democracies. Three principles stand out in particular. First, the principle of subsidiarity and the associated notion of decentralisation ensure that EU institutions do not infringe upon national sovereignties (Majone 1998). Second, the principle of output legitimacy - based on effectiveness - can mitigate the EU s lack of input legitimacy in terms of popular control (Scharpf 1999). 1

Third, the principle of participation and the participatory turn of the EU (Saurugger 2010) operate from the idea that public interests can also be balanced in participatory arenas, not just in parliament. Despite the bottom up and participatory style of governance that these principles suggest, EU environmental policy has historically been characterised by top-down, technocratic decision-making. The rapid growth of EU environmental legislation during the late 1970s and the 1980s can to a substantial part be contributed to integration by stealth and took place largely out of view of public scrutiny (Jordan 2000). In recent times, this style of decision-making has become problematic. For example, EU environmental directives set ambitious targets (Jordan 1999) that have led to (political) conflicts with other interests such as economic development, agriculture, or public works, and continue to do so. To gain insight into how these conflicts are resolved, an increasing number of studies deal with how democratic legitimacy in EU environmental policy is constructed (Behagel and Turnhout 2011, Leino and Peltomaa 2012). These studies argue that legitimacy does not so much depend on formal, legal principles, but rather follows from the articulation of democratic norms ((Häikiö 2007, Behagel and Turnhout 2011). This paper contributes to further insight into this topic by demonstrating how accounts of legitimacy change over time as different norms of legitimacy are articulated in changing policy discourses. The focus of this article is the EU s Natura 2000 policy, which is legally embedded in the Birds Directive (European Council Directive 79/409/EEC) and the Habitats Directive (HD) (European Council Directive 92/43/EEC). Natura 2000 aims to ensure the long-term survival of the most threatened habitats and species by means of the establishment of Europe-wide classifications of endangered and priority habitats, the designation of protected sites, the imposition of a legal framework for the protection of species and their habitats, and the monitoring of conservation efforts. Natura 2000 integrates scientific, economic, and societal criteria with the aim to overcome the limitations of traditional, top-down, science-based, and nation-state centred conservation systems (Alphandéry and Fortier 2001). This is particularly relevant as the focus of Natura 2000 is not only on so-called pristine nature, but also on semi-natural territories such as farmlands, forests and grasslands, which are managed in traditional and sustainable ways (EC 2005, EC 2008). Moreover, Natura 2000 refers to the need of consulting affected societal stakeholders for the management of the protected sites. This makes clear that Natura 2000 involves multiple rationales and objectives, including science-based conservation and stakeholder participation, which implies that it is likely to give rise to different accounts of democratic legitimacy. In the next two sections, we present the conceptual and methodological approach used to explore these accounts. 2

Norms of legitimacy Political scientists define legitimacy as the acceptance and justification of a shared rule by a community (Bernstein 2011, 20). Acceptance - or the process of giving consent - refers to relations of authority, for example whether rules and institutions are considered authoritative by private actors. The aspect of justification refers to the norms that provide the basis for these relations of authority. These norms traditionally include political participation, interest representation, and effective government (Schmidt 2004). Yet, these latter norms are not self-evident for all democratic contexts. They can be articulated in different ways and do not in principle exclude other norms. For example, political participation may be articulated either as the process of voting or as the process of partaking in participatory workshops. Thus, different accounts of why certain policies and decisions are considered legitimate are likely to be based on different norms. It follows that the analysis of legitimacy needs to give account of the norms that are articulated in the justification of any decision-making process. This is particularly relevant for EU environmental policy, including Natura 2000. Natura 2000 contains references to multiple norms of legitimacy to justify decisions and thus forms a useful illustration of how legitimacy is constructed in and through processes of governance (Connelly 2011, p. 930). In the case of Natura 2000, we focus on the following three norms of legitimacy that are central to debates about EU environmental policies: decentralisation, effectiveness, and participation (e.g. Jordan 2000, Schout and Jordan 2005, Bulkeley and Mol 2003). The norm of decentralisation is reflected in Natura 2000 s multi-level character, which provides member states with the discretionary freedom to implement requirements according to national and regional conditions (Beunen 2006, Ferranti et al. 2010). This norm is embedded in the EU s legislative system through the principle of subsidiarity and actively stimulates that decisions are taken as closely as possible to where these decisions have an impact (Wils 1994, Jensen and Richardson 2004). For example, the HD allows member states to adapt Natura 2000 to regional and local characteristics (European Council Directive 92/43/EEC) and to delegate conservation tasks to local authorities in order to better adapt Natura 2000 sites conservation to local characteristics (EC 2002). The norm of decentralisation relates to the perceived limitations of top-down policies (Skelcher 2000) and the inability of states to deal with globalisation. Certain issues, such as transboundary pollution for example, transcend the individual interests and capacities of nation states and need to be addressed in supra-national fora, while others, such as local development, are best dealt with at a local or regional level. Within the context of the EU, this norm has especially been given shape in the idea of multi-level governance (Hooghe and Marks 2001) that holds that effective steering is best attained at higher levels of governance, while lower levels offer increased opportunities for relevant and affected actors to participate (Moss and Newig 2010). 3

However, whether these latter opportunities are realised is debatable since decentralisation processes have often generated mixed results for enhancing legitimacy (Jordan 2000). The second important norm of legitimacy discussed in the context EU environmental policy is effectiveness. Ideas about the failed state have led to a new emphasis on effectiveness and output legitimacy. For example, Natura 2000 uses broad, qualitative framework goals that offer a common ambition for Europe s nature and coordinate the different activities of the EU member states to ensure the long-term survival of Europe s biodiversity (Waterton and Wynne 1996, Waterton 2002, Sabel and Zeitlin 2008). Natura 2000 s objectives prioritise the preservation of a favourable conservation status (EC 1992) of the habitat types and species for which a protected site has been designated (Mehtälä and Vuorisalo 2007). This focus on effectiveness has also resulted in the emergence of a new mode of accountability (Papadopoulos 2007, Bevir 2010). Within the EU, this new mode of accountability has specifically been given shape through the principles of monitoring and reporting, which aim to ensure that the performance of member states in achieving the objectives of EU policies is made transparent and the effectiveness of implementation is enhanced. However, the instrumental rationality that underpins these principles - and the bureaucracies that uphold them - increasingly lead to unintended side effects that bring about risks and contestations (Voß et al. 2006), for example when accounting practices lead to the avoidance of transparency, rather than its realisation (Power 1997). Finally, Natura 2000 draws on the norm of participation to legitimise decisions, especially when conservation objectives can be expected to have significant effects on socio-economic activities. Although active involvement of stakeholders is not mentioned in the legal text of the HD, it is part of guidances on Natura 2000 and has more recently been legally anchored in the directive for public participation in environmental matters (Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council). The importance of participatory legitimacy has found its way in the EU system during the early 1990s through a so-called participatory turn, when the involvement of organised civil society in EU decisionmaking processes became somewhat of a political imperative (Saurugger 2010) as an answer to increasing attention to the perceived democratic deficit of EU governance. However, participatory approaches might conflict with parliamentary forms of democracy, while their effects are divergent and not always as expected (Cooke and Kothari 2001, Held, 2006, Turnhout et al. 2010, Van Assche et al. 2011). The alternative principles and associated norms of legitimacy that have been propagated by the EU to mitigate its democratic deficit may translate into different approaches and may end up producing different outcomes for legitimacy. This is what can be observed in the history of Natura 2000. Natura 2000 has faced numerous difficulties, conflicts and critics in different member states (Rosa and Da Silva 2005, Beunen et al. 2013). Many of these disputes exhibit the contestation over and the articulation of 4

specific norms of legitimacy, which vary in different contexts and over time. The varying - and often competing - accounts of the legitimacy of Natura 2000 illustrate the usefulness of conceptualizing legitimacy not as an a priori criterion, but rather as situated and constructed in practice (Behagel and Turnhout 2011, Connelly 2011). In this article, we analyse the construction of legitimacy by focusing on the articulation of the above introduced norms of legitimacy. The next section details the discursive approach we used in our analysis. Analysing the construction of legitimacy: a discursive approach In this article, we apply a discursive approach to legitimacy that recognises the constructed nature of legitimacy. Such a perspective holds that the meaning of Natura 2000 is shaped by the broader political discourses in which this policy is articulated (Ferranti et al. 2013). Discourse theory assumes a dialectical relation between discourse and actors where actors are both constituted in, and constitutive of discourse (Hajer 1995). While our analysis does not focus on actors explicitly, this dialectical relation does point to the importance of focusing on the practice of articulation as the site where discourse is produced and reproduced. It follows that the construction of legitimacy involves the joint articulation of norms of legitimacy. The articulation of these norms does not occur in a vacuum. According to Dryzek (2001), an important dimension of legitimacy is the resonance of policies and their justifications with prevailing discourses. Thus, identifying the meaning of specific accounts of legitimacy requires taking into account the discourses that they evoke or resonate with. In our analysis, we distinguish four important discourses that have institutionalised in EU environmental governance and that put forward particular norms of legitimacy: Europeanization, Technocracy, Participation, and Neoliberalism (Dryzek 1997, Fischer 2000). Space does not permit us to introduce these discourses in detail but Table 1 presents the main keywords and storylines of each discourse tailored specifically to Natura 2000 1. Table 1. Discourses of Natura 2000 and their keywords Discourse Storylines Keywords Europeanization Harmonizing the legal, social, economic and environmental conditions among member states. Building a common identity by means of unified frameworks and a common policy language Common identity Network Multi-level governance Subsidiarity principle 1 The specification of the four discourses is the result of an extended literature review and has been tested in an unpublished pilot study of Natura 2000 that took place prior to the writing of this article. Full details are available upon request. 5

Recognizing the cross boundary character of nature and of the EU by creating a coherent network of the EU s nature areas Respecting the different competences and qualities of different levels of governance Technocracy Guaranteeing the long term conservation of the EU s habitats and species Ensuring the quality and evidence base of Natura 2000 by involving science and expertise Controlling compliance by means of common reporting frameworks, monitoring methodologies and standardised assessments Participation Involving stakeholders, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), citizens and the public by consulting them or engaging them in policy practice Neoliberalism Ensuring the efficiency of Natura 2000 Searching opportunities to lower costs and increase benefits Stimulating win-win outcomes where conservation and economic growth can benefit each other Engaging private and market actors who can contribute to financing Natura 2000 Reporting Monitoring Scientific expertise Evidence Assessment Habitats and species Stakeholders Consultation NGOs Citizens and the public Efficiency Private Market Economic Financial costs and benefits Win-win The relative importance of these discourses in society and in EU environmental policy has changed over time (Ferranti et al. 2013). Consequently, we use a longitudinal approach that enables us to examine how the articulation of democratic norms and the construction of legitimacy changed over time. This is important because policies change in the face of changing discourses even when policy documents remain the same. Thus, adding a longitudinal dimension enables insight into the ways in which certain ideas invade policies and influence their meaning. To that end, we discuss three different phases in the history of Natura 2000. The first phase refers to the period in which the ideas for Natura 2000 were developed and introduced, the second phase pays more attention to the debates that arose when member states started to adapt their legal framework, sites were designated, and the impacts of conservation efforts on socio-economics activities became clear. Although this latter debate is still ongoing, there has been a shift in focus towards financial issues, which is discussed in the third phase. We draw on a systematic analysis of important policy documents related to Natura 2000, including the HD, the European Union s Biodiversity Strategy, selected guidances for implementation, and research reports that were commissioned by the EC. This is complemented with material from interviews with 9 6

key actors, including representatives of the EC, representatives of environmental Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) and scientific researchers, who were or are deeply involved in Natura 2000 policy events (see annex 1 for an overview). During the interviews, the respondents were invited to talk about their experiences and views related to Natura 2000 and the different dynamics during the history of Natura 2000. We subjected the data to a qualitative analysis consisting of three steps. In a first round of coding, we analysed the materials for the occurrence of the discourses through the identification of characteristic storylines and keywords as specified in table 1. This provided the basis of a second round of coding during which we zoomed in on the presence of the three norms of legitimacy (decentralisation, effectiveness, participation). Subsequently a third round of analysis focused on the particular meanings that the identified norms of legitimacy assumed as they were articulated in changing policy discourses. For each of the three phases of Natura 2000, we present materials and illustrative quotations from documents and interviews to identify the discourses present and discuss the articulation of the norms of legitimacy. The construction of legitimacy in Natura 2000 Designing Natura 2000 The HD, which includes the creation of the European ecological network Natura 2000, articulates the importance of a European strategy to combat biodiversity loss as follows: In the European territory of the member states, natural habitats are continuing to deteriorate and an increasing number of wild species are seriously threatened [.]. Given that the threatened habitats and species form part of the community s natural heritage [ ] it is necessary to take measures at community level (European Council Directive 92/43/EEC); On the basis of the criteria set out in Annex III (Stage 1) and relevant scientific information, each Member State shall propose a list of sites indicating which natural habitat types in Annex I and which species in Annex II that are native to its territory the sites host (European Council Directive 92/43/EEC). These quotations not only show the EU s objective to integrate Europe s nature areas in a common framework, but also how science-based arguments related to species, habitats, and their threats are used to legitimise this approach. The non-state parties consulted on the first draft of the HD were mainly scientific experts from environmental NGOs and scientific organisations (Interviews Stuffmann 2010, Cashman 2011). The draft introduces the concept of network as a structuring principle of nature conservation in the EU. This concept of network resonates both with the EU s objective to unify and integrate Europe s nature areas in a common framework, as well as with principles from ecological 7

science, which emphasise the importance of ecological corridors to make sure that nature areas can be interconnected to enhance their conservation value (Interview Schaminee 2010). Natura 2000 is very explicit in its promotion of a scientific approach to nature conservation and it envisages that the designation of sites is an exclusively scientific exercise undertaken using standard selection criteria (EC 2002, p. 8). These criteria are the presence of species and habitat types that are listed in the annexes of the two directives. Of particular relevance are annexes 1 and 2 of the HD, which include natural habitat types and animal and plant species of community interest that require protection (EC 2002). The decision regarding the inclusion of specific species in the list has been based on negotiations among experts from Environmental NGOs and scientific organisations that were consulted. Although the draft lists were presented to the member states for commenting, many member states did not fully utilise this possibility and sent the list back with no or minor comments (Interview Hanley 2010). As Schaminee recalls: At the time when the lists were made, nobody knew that they would become so important (Interview Schaminee 2010). Scientific assessments are used in various procedures and regulations related to Natura 2000, including the analysis of the current state of Natura 2000 sites and the extent to which this deviates from the objective of favourable conservation status. A particularly important one is the Assessment of Implications procedure, which specifies that all current and future human activities are to be evaluated by means of systematic methodologies in terms of the effect they have on the conservation status of the sites (EC 2002). In addition to these specific assessments, the European Commission (EC) has created monitoring and reporting procedures to generate a comprehensive overview of compliance in the different member states. As the preamble of the HD explains: A system should be set up for surveillance of the conservation states of the natural habitats and species covered by this directive (European Council Directive 92/43/EEC). The primacy of scientific criteria in this phase is also clear in the HD s conception of participation. While scientific experts were directly consulted, it was felt that broader participation was not necessary in this phase. Direct stakeholder involvement was only considered useful in the implementation phase, particularly in the selection of the Natura 2000 sites, and not in the policy development phase (Interviews Arroyo 2010, Braat 2010, Jones-Walter 2010, Jongman 2010, Kremer 2010). The findings presented in this section point to an important role of technocratic discourse in this phase of Natura 2000. This is evidenced by the numerous references in documents and interviews to scientific expertise, scientific concepts such as habitats and species and scientific criteria and assessments (EC 2000, EC 2001). In addition, Europeanization discourse can be identified in the focus on a common framework for Europe s nature. The monitoring and reporting frameworks for Natura 2000 represent an important point of connection between technocracy and Europeanization discourse: 8

through common monitoring and reporting procedures, compliance with the objectives of Natura 2000 can be assessed in a comparable and standardised way while leaving room to the member states to decide how to achieve these objectives (European Habitats Forum 2006). With this focus on monitoring and science-based assessment of compliance, the norm of effectiveness takes a central position in the account of legitimacy that can be identified in this phase. The norm of decentralisation was not convincingly enacted in practice, as member states did not take full advantage of the possibility to influence Natura 2000. Finally, the norm of participation was placed in a secondary position. Implementing Natura 2000 As a first step in the realisation of Natura 2000, member states were required to submit a proposal with a list of sites to include in Natura 2000. These proposals were scrutinised during a series of biogeographical seminars to assess whether the proposed sites were sufficiently representative of Europe s biodiversity as defined in the HD s annexes (Interview Hanley 2010). Prior to the seminars, scientific experts on behalf of the EC carried out a technical assessment of the proposals. These experts were considered independent scientists that supported the scientific and technical work involved in the sites selection (Interviews Hanley 2010, Schaminee 2010). It was the ambition of the EC to come to an objective conclusion based on the information provided by the experts in their technical assessments and on the arguments put forward by the participants in the seminars, which included scientific experts as well (Interview Hanley 2010). Hanley felt that in the end, the member states were fairly content with the outcome: [ ] Many of the member states when they [the final lists] came out, they had to admit that the process was done quite objectively. [ ] That was the strength of the process, that it was very open, they [the experts] were doing very scientifically sound assessments and they researched all kind of references in the literature (Interview Hanley 2010). In other words, according to Hanley, the use of scientific criteria ensured that the process was seen as fair and objective. However, there were also objections by the member states. Even prior to the seminars, different social and economic interests in member states had influenced the proposals. As Hanley states: The problem was that environmental Ministers in many member states had the forestry sector saying no to this, the transport administration saying no to this, the agricultural people saying no to this. Even the military did not want Natura 2000 in its training grounds (Interview Hanley 2010). Consequently, the delegates of the member states were aware of the fact that their proposals would not meet the requirements of Natura 2000. As Hanley remembers: Some [ ] were even quite pleased when they were sent back with the Commission saying, insufficient, you have to do more because obviously they had been overruled at the state level during the proposal of sites (Interview Hanley 2010). 9

Experts from environmental NGOs played a crucial role in the site selection. In cases where the proposals of the member states were deemed insufficient, they would develop so called shadow lists. These shadow lists were seen as a valuable reference by the EC in its negotiations with the member states and the EC used them as leverage to try to enhance the ambition level of Natura 2000 (Weber and Chistophersen 2002). According to Hanley, this strengthened the transparency of the process: Sometimes we would know [ ] the whole process because environmental NGOs were coming to tell me what had gone on in a particular member state. This was a fairly transparent process (Interview Hanley 2010). Thus, environmental NGOs together with the EC tried to enhance the ecological quality of Natura 2000 by applying scientific criteria and by influencing the ambition level of the member states selection of sites (CEEWEB 2004). This demonstrates the ongoing dominance of technocratic discourse. This dominance is further demonstrated by the limited role of landowners and land-users. Although the importance of the involvement of landowners and land-users was recognised, they did not have a strong influence on decision-making processes in the biogeographical seminars (Weber and Chistophersen 2002). Such a role was restricted to those actors that were considered able to make a scientific contribution. Within the member states however, landowners, land-users, and other socio-economic actors started to resist Natura 2000, which affected its implementation. In response to the emerging resistance and delays, the EC organised a conference in Bath in June 1998 entitled Natura 2000 and people: a partnership. The main aim of this conference was to develop a positive conception of Natura 2000 and find ways to overcome resistance by socio-economic actors (EC 1998). The conference included presentations and workshops about different socio-economic activities affected by Natura 2000, comprising amongst others tourism, agriculture, hunting, and forestry. The introductory presentations reflected the objectives of the conference. They included general reassurances towards socio-economic actors and attempted to correct an overly strict interpretation of Natura 2000 by emphasizing that Natura 2000 does not a priori prohibit all human activities: The reason for making designations is [ ] to put a flag on the site which says take notice, not keep out (EC 1998, p. 8); Nature includes people. People are part of nature. It is a partnership (EC 1998, p. 13). Also, they pointed to the need of raising the awareness of the rationale of Natura 2000 and explaining it to stakeholders: Inevitably however, those who will be affected by the designation [will want] to understand and sometimes [ ] challenge the scientific reasoning behind the selection and [this] is not always easy to explain (EC 1998, p. 7). These quotations illustrate the strengthening of Europeanization discourse and the emergence of participatory discourse during this phase of Natura 2000. Participatory discourse however is articulated 10

in a narrow way. Although the importance of participation was emphasised, socio-economic actors were primarily cast as ignorant of the rationale of Natura 2000 and in need of proper education and information about what Natura 2000 means and how it should be implemented. The findings presented in this section demonstrate a continued dominance of technocratic discourse. Experts were given a prominent position in the assessment of the proposals for sites and science-based criteria were used to judge whether member states had been sufficiently ambitious. However, we have also seen the strengthening of Europeanization discourse and the emergence of participatory discourse during the conference of Bath. This combination has resulted in a specific articulation of the norms of participation, decentralisation and effectiveness. The account of legitimacy that can be identified in this phase evokes the norm of participation, but at the same time subjugates it under the norms of decentralisation and effectiveness: participation is seen as a means to create informed stakeholders who understand and support the Natura 2000 and contribute to its implementation. Financing Natura 2000 In the early 2000s, financing Natura 2000 became a major concern. The main bone of contention was whether to finance Natura 2000 by integrating it in existing EU funds or whether a new financial instrument should be created. In March 2003, the EC organised a conference that invited member states as well as other actors to discuss financing strategies (Gantioler et al. 2010). During this conference, it became clear that member states preferred the first option, as this would provide them the most space to make their own decisions. In contrast, most environmental NGOs preferred the second option, as that would provide the best guarantees for the realisation of Natura 2000 in all EU countries, including those with less financial resources. In the end, after consultation with member states and with relevant stakeholders, it was decided to use existing funds such as those dedicated to rural development. This was also a way to integrate different forms of land-use. According to the EC, this provided opportunities to realise Natura 2000 in a cost-effective and efficient manner that would take into account not only the costs of Natura 2000 but also its potential socio-economic benefits (EC 2004). In other words, the EC argued that realizing Natura 2000 did not necessarily have to imply a trade-off between economic and environmental interests but could result in a win-win situation. The emphasis on finances, on limiting costs and on finding efficient win-win situations clearly reflects the emergence of neoliberal discourse. Financial considerations also formed the backdrop of a project about the costs and socio-economic benefits associated with Natura 2000 (Gantioler et al. 2010). This project aimed at estimating the costs of managing Natura 2000 and increasing awareness about Natura 2000 s benefits in order to enhance public support for Natura 2000. The findings presented in the report indicate that while certain benefits 11

of Natura 2000 were recognised as relevant, Natura 2000 was mostly considered to be an obstacle to economic development (Gantioler et al. 2010). Specifically, Natura 2000 was believed to have caused strict regulations and limited public access to and use of natural sites, while offering insufficient compensation to those affected (Gantioler et al. 2010). In addition, the report emphasised the importance of assessing and monitoring the socio-economic benefits of Natura 2000 (Gantioler et al. 2010, p 1): There is still an apparent lack of quantitative/monetary and well-documented information on the socioeconomic benefits associated with Natura 2000. [ ] Concerted efforts are required to improve the understanding of the benefits a common approach to demonstrate the value at not just local, but also regional, national and EU level is needed. This quote demonstrates the emphasis that is being put on not just the realisation of socioeconomic benefits, but also the development of a common framework to monitor and report on these benefits. It points to the influence of neoliberal and Europeanization discourse and the mobilisation of the norm of effectiveness. The conclusions of the project gave rise to a stakeholder conference that took place in July 2010. During this conference, several presentations highlighted the importance of ensuring the realisation of Natura 2000 and invited stakeholders to explore financing possibilities, including private investments (McConville and Gantioler 2010). One presentation offered an overview of the different potential benefits of Natura 2000, including financial benefits to be derived from tourism activities or from ecosystem services such as carbon storage or the extraction of biomass. Innovative financial instruments such as eco-labelling of Natura 2000 products were also mentioned as potential financing strategies (Gantioler et al. 2010). Throughout the meeting, stakeholders support was considered to be a crucial requirement for Natura 2000, and particularly for the effective and efficient realisation of its ecological and socioeconomic benefits. The types of stakeholders that were addressed in these appeals differed from the ones in the previous section on implementing Natura 2000. While in that period, the addressed stakeholders were mainly landowners and land-users whose activities were considered compatible with the Natura 2000 objectives (such as extensive agriculture, forestry or hunting), the discussions about financing Natura 2000 during this period addressed mainly business actors. This is particularly clear in the EC s biodiversity strategy that considers the economic valuation of biodiversity as a key priority: [The EU s biodiversity policy] is underpinned by the recognition that, in addition to its intrinsic value, biodiversity and the services it provides have significant economic value that is seldom captured in markets [ ]. Fully valuing nature s potential will contribute to a number of the EU s strategic objectives including enhancing resource efficiency, achieving a low carbon economy, and creating innovation and jobs (EC 2011, p. 2-3). 12

To realise this, the strategy aims to set up new partnerships that explicitly include businesses (EC 2011). The biodiversity strategy also sets out to improve the biodiversity knowledge base, which includes not only knowledge about habitats and species but also knowledge about ecosystem services: The Commission will continue its work to fill key research gaps, including on mapping and assessing ecosystem services in Europe, which will help improve our knowledge of the links between biodiversity and climate change, and the role of soil biodiversity in delivering key ecosystem services (EC 2011, p. 4). In this quote, we can recognise a similar mobilisation of technocratic discourse as the one identified earlier in the design phase of Natura 2000, with the difference that the focus on knowledge production has shifted from habitats and species to ecosystem services (Turnhout et al. 2013, 2014a). This section shows significant changes in the discourses mobilised in Natura 2000. Specifically, we have seen a strong focus on the financial underpinnings of Natura 2000 and the emergence of neoliberal discourse. Although participatory discourse can also be identified, under the influence of neoliberal discourse it is now business actors that are requested to participate rather than landowners and landusers. Similarly, technocratic and Europeanization discourse can also be identified, but with the emergence of neoliberal discourse, the focus of expertise and common monitoring and reporting frameworks have started to move away from habitats and species towards ecosystem services. The account of legitimacy in this phase is mostly organised around the articulation of the norm of effectiveness as cost-effectiveness. Concomitantly, the norms of participation and decentralisation are articulated as instruments to achieve cost-effectiveness. Changing accounts of legtimacy Throughout the processes of designing, implementing and financing Natura 2000, different accounts of legitimacy were articulated. These changes in the construction of legitimacy resulted first of all from the way in which norms of legitimacy resonated with policy discourses (as presented in table 1) and second, from the way in which they were articulated in relation to each other. In relation to the first point, our analysis has demonstrated that in the history of Natura 2000, different discourses were mobilised in different combinations. In the design phase, Natura 2000 was characterised by a prominent role of technocratic discourse, which was mobilised in conjunction with Europeanization discourse. Together, these emphasised the importance of a strong scientific underpinning of Natura 2000 by collecting and reporting data about European species and habitats. In other words, science was seen as a way to achieve European integration in the sense that it facilitates the integration of Europe s nature in a unified framework. Participatory discourse was mobilised in relation to the implementation of Natura 2000 rather than its design, and in a way that privileged information sharing over more active forms of participation. In addition, participation was conceived important to facilitate the integration of specific forms of land-use with conservation. This means that only those 13

societal actors that engage in land-uses considered compatible with Natura 2000 were considered relevant. Finally, when concerns about financing Natura 2000 took centre stage, neoliberal discourse emerged. Through this discourse, attention was focused on the cost-effectiveness of Natura 2000, which could be optimised by creating win-win situations that realise not only conservation objectives but also socio-economic benefits. In this period, participatory discourse was mobilised as well, but now it was business actors that were considered relevant. Europeanization and technocratic discourses continued to be reflected in the way monitoring and reporting systems were set up. However, under the influence of neoliberal discourse, these systems now started to focus on ecosystem services and their financial benefits rather than on habitats and species. Second, the democratic norms were attributed different levels of importance in different accounts of legitimacy over time. In the design phase of Natura 2000, the norm of effectiveness was prominent and it was articulated in such a way that the norm of participation could be sidetracked as a potential threat to effectiveness. This was no longer possible in later stages of Natura 2000. The active resistance of landowners, land-users, and other socio-economic actors to the implementation of Natura 2000 led to the stronger articulation of the norm of participation alongside the norms of decentralisation and effectiveness. Despite this development however, decisions continued to be justified by expertise and the dominant view of participation remained that of informing and consulting relevant stakeholders. As such, the norm of participation remained subsumed under those of effectiveness and decentralisation. In the early 2000s, financing Natura 2000 became a major issue. The decision to finance Natura 2000 by integrating it in existing EU funds rather than creating a new financial instrument reflects the role of the norm of decentralisation as this new fund would strengthen the role of the EU as a site of decision making, which was considered undesirable from the perspective of the member states. This decision also effectuated the re-articulation of the norm of participation in a new relation to the norm of effectiveness, because it made the participation of actors associated with these existing EU funds indispensable for the financing of Natura 2000. Under the influence of neoliberal discourse and the attempt to shift focus from financial costs to potential benefits, the norm of participation became even more explicitly mobilised to ensure that Natura 2000 is properly financed and realises its potential socio-economic benefits, for example by focusing on business actors. Although each norm of legitimacy contributed to the construction of legitimacy during the different phases of Natura 2000, our analysis shows that effectiveness is the most prominent one. In the early phases of Natura 2000, effectiveness mainly referred to the potential of Natura 2000 to achieve its conservation objectives. In the final phase of our analysis however, the articulation of the norm of effectiveness changed. This resulted not so much from a stronger emphasis on the norms of decentralisation and/or participation, but rather from the emergence of neoliberal discourse, which 14

changed what effectiveness meant, how it could be assessed, and who should be involved to achieve it. Specifically, with the emergence of neoliberal discourse, effectiveness increasingly came to mean costeffectiveness. Conclusion: neoliberal discourse and the articulation of legitimacy as cost-effectiveness The value of our discursive approach to legitimacy has been its ability to show that the legitimacy of Natura 2000 does not so much reside in formal EU documents, but is constructed in the context of changing discourses. Although we recognise that the inclusion of the norms of decentralisation, effectiveness, and participation in formal EU Natura 2000 documents such as the HD can bring about change, our analysis highlights that the relative importance of these norms is influenced by the policy discourses with which they resonate. Moreover, these norms have also been shown to influence each other by mutually articulating their meanings. Using this perspective, we have been able to highlight not only how the construction of legitimacy changes over time, but also to show an important degree of stability in the midst of these changes. In light of this, it is important to reflect on the continued dominance of the norm of effectiveness and on the changes in the articulation of this norm under the influence of neoliberal discourse. A growing body of literature documents the emergence of neoliberal discourse in environmental and conservation policy and its claimed ability to integrate economic, environmental and social concerns and realise multiple wins in practice (Igoe and Brockington 2007, Buscher et al. 2012, Turnhout et al. 2013). Indeed, it has been argued that exactly this potential explains its widespread acceptance. Also in the case of Natura 2000 we found that neoliberal discourse demonstrated this integrative ability and was able to incorporate elements of different discourses and articulate different norms of legitimacy. However, we also showed that the articulation of these different norms was not equal. We have seen that under the influence of neoliberal discourse, the norm of effectiveness was re-articulated as costeffectiveness and was positioned above decentralisation and participation. This account of legitimacy was also linked to specific types of practices such as the use of economic expertise, the establishment of public-private partnerships, and the enrolment of business actors as important stakeholders. The overall dominance of neoliberal discourse and the norm of effectiveness imply that although the norms of participation and decentralisation are increasingly evoked to legitimise Natura 2000, they are articulated at the service of (cost)-effectiveness. As such, the case of Natura 2000 offers an illustration of the influence of neoliberal discourse on nature conservation and environmental governance that goes beyond the oft-critiqued promotion of markets and commodification. While it can be argued that marketization and commodification are to some extent implied in recent trends in Natura 2000, our main point is that neoliberal discourse has resulted in a strong focus on managerial values, in 15

our case effectiveness and specifically cost-effectiveness, in public policy. In other words, our case signifies the introduction of a neoliberal governmentality logic in EU nature policy (Turnhout et al. 2014b). Although it would be contrary to the perspective used in our analysis to suggest that this particular construction of legitimacy will necessarily endure, there are signs of it growing in importance in environmental policy more broadly. Studies on other domains of EU environmental policy such as water reveal similar dynamics (e.g. Behagel and Arts 2014). Also on a global scale, we can observe many initiatives that approach nature conservation and environmental protection issues from a costeffectiveness perspective (McAfee 1999). Examples include habitat banking (Robertson 2006), biodiversity offsetting, (Sullivan and Hannis 2014), the REDD+ mechanism in the context of climate change and forests (Corbera 2012, Skutsch et al. 2014), and the TEEB (The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity) and IPBES (the Intergovernmental science-policy Platform for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services) initiatives (Turnhout et al. 2013, 2014b). Although many of these examples much like we have seen in the case of Natura 2000 do evoke a variety of democratic norms, by foregrounding (cost) effectiveness they in effect downplay and exclude alternative constructions of legitimacy that award more value to localised forms of decision-making and the participation of a broad group of stakeholders and citizens. Thus, legitimacy in nature policy has to a large extent come down to the question of whether it can realise cost-effective nature conservation and this is likely to continue and develop further in the face of the ongoing economic and financial crisis and associated demands for austerity measures. We suggest that this may ultimately be too narrow a basis for nature conservation policy and practice. Acknowledgments We are grateful to our respondents for their valuable contribution to the article. References Alphandéry, P. and Fortier, A., 2001. Can a Territorial Policy be Based on Science Alone? The System for Creating the Natura 2000 Network in France. Sociologia Ruralis 41(3), 311-328. Behagel, J.H. and Arts, B. (2014) Democratic governance and political rationalities in the implementation of the Water Framework Directive in the Netherlands. Public Administration 92 (2), 291 306. Behagel, J. and Turnhout, E., 2011. Democratic Legitimacy in the Implementation of the Water Framework Directive in the Netherlands: Towards Participatory and Deliberative Norms? Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 13(3), 297-316. Bernstein, S., 2011. Legitimacy in intergovernmental and non-state global governance. Review of International Political Economy, 18(1), 17-51. 16

Beunen, R., 2006. European nature conservation legislation and spatial planning: For better or for worse? Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 49(4), 605-619. Beunen, R., Van Assche, K. and Duineveld, M., 2013. Performing failure in conservation policy: The implementation of European Union directives in the Netherlands. Land Use Policy, 31, 280-288. Bevir, M., 2010. Democratic governance. Princeton University Press. Bulkeley, H. and Mol, A.P.J., 2003. Participation and environmental governance: Consensus, ambivalence and debate. Environmental Values, 12(2), 143-154. Buscher, B. et al. 2012. Towards a synthesized critique of neoliberal biodiversity conservation. Capitalism Nature Socialism, 23 (2), 4-30. CEEWEB, 2004. Natura 2000 Site Designation Process with a special focus on the Biogeographic seminars. Budapest. Available at: http://www.ceeweb.org/wpcontent/uploads/2011/12/biogeo_booklet.pdf [accessed 26 February 2014]. Connelly, S., 2011. Constructing legitimacy in the new community governance. Urban Studies, 48(5), 929-946. Cooke, B. and Kothari, U., eds., 2001. Participation: the new tyranny? London: Zed Books. Corbera, E., 2012. Problematizing REDD+ as an experiment in payments for ecosystem services. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 4, 612-619. Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment and amending with regard to public participation and access to justice Council Directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC.: Official Journal L 156, 25 June 2003. Availabe at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/en/all/?uri=celex:32003l0035 [accessed 15 July 2014]. Dryzek, J.S., 1997. The politics of the earth: Environmental discourses. Oxford University Press. Dryzek, J.S., 2001. Legitimacy and economy in deliberative democracy. Political theory, 29(5), 651-669. European Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/birdsdirective/index_en.htm [Accessed 26 February 2014]. European Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/habitatsdirective/index_en.htm [Accessed 26 February 2014]. EC, 1998. Natura 2000 and people: a partnership. Proceedings of a Conference held in Bath, UK on 28-30 June 1998. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/info/pubs/docs/nat2000/1998_bath_proceedings.pdf [Accessed 26 February 2014]. 17