Skip to main content
×
Home

Roles and impacts of non-governmental organizations in Natura 2000 implementation in Hungary and Poland

  • JOANNA CENT (a1) (a2), CORDULA MERTENS (a3) and KRZYSZTOF NIEDZIAŁKOWSKI (a4) (a5)
Summary
SUMMARY

The ecological network of Natura 2000, an European Union (EU) initiative to halt biodiversity loss across Europe, has dominated biodiversity governance in the new EU member states in recent years, as implementation was a condition of accession. Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have generally assisted Natura 2000 implementation. In two Central and Eastern European countries (Poland and Hungary), NGOs became involved in different ways; this paper seeks to analyse and explain these national differences by researching the theoretical background of policy networks and advocacy coalitions in both countries. In Hungary, NGOs worked closely with governmental authorities and contributed significantly to site selection. In Poland, NGOs initially opposed government plans, but later moved toward close cooperation with public institutions; this resulted in a significant expansion in the area and number of designated Natura 2000 sites. In both countries, NGO influence increased during the Natura 2000 process owing to the establishment of multi-level policy networks with the European Commission and public institutions, based on resource dependencies and shared beliefs. In post-socialist countries, the progression from government-monopolized biodiversity conservation implies a growing importance and contribution of NGOs, and their ability to use resources appropriately in the new governance contexts.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Roles and impacts of non-governmental organizations in Natura 2000 implementation in Hungary and Poland
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Roles and impacts of non-governmental organizations in Natura 2000 implementation in Hungary and Poland
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Roles and impacts of non-governmental organizations in Natura 2000 implementation in Hungary and Poland
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
This is a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States.
Corresponding author
*Correspondence: Joanna Cent Tel: +48 1266 45204 Fax: +48 1266 46912 e-mail: joanna.cent@uj.edu.pl
Cordula Mertens Tel: +36 2852 200 2269 Fax: +36 2841 5383 e-mail: cordula.mertens@kti.szie.hu
Krzysztof Niedziałkowski e-mail: kniedz@ibs.bialowieza.pl
References
Hide All
Alphandéry P. & 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: 311328.
Arany I. & Tripolszky S. (2007) Natura 2000 from NGO point of view: lessons learned in EU-10. Publication by CEEweb for Biodiversity. [www document]. URL http://www.ceeweb.org/publications/english/Natura_lessons_learnt.pdf
Bell R.G. (2004) Further up the learning curve: NGOs from transition to Brussels. Environmental Politics 13: 194215.
Börzel T. & Buzogány A. (2010 a) Environmental organisations and the Europeanisation of public policy in Central and Eastern Europe: the case of biodiversity governance. Environmental Politics 19: 708735.
Börzel T. & Buzogány A. (2010 b) Governing EU accession in transition countries: the role of non-state actors. Acta Politica 45: 158182.
Elliott C. & Schlaepfer R. (2001) Understanding forest certification using the advocacy coalition framework. Forest Policy and Economics 2: 257266.
EC (2002) Commission working document on Natura 2000. Commission of the European Communities, Brussels, 27 December 2002 [www document]. URL http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/info/pubs/docs/nat2000/2002_faq_en.pdf
EEA (2007) Europe's environment. The fourth assessment. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen, Denmark [www document] URL http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/state_of_environment_report_2007_1
Fairbrass J. & Jordan A. (2001) Protecting biodiversity in the European Union: national barriers and European opportunities? Journal of European Public Policy 8: 499518.
Ferranti F., Beunen R. & Speranza M. (2010) Natura 2000 Network: a comparison of the Italian and Dutch implementation experiences. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning 12: 293314.
Grodzińska-Jurczak M. & Cent J. (2011) Expansion of nature conservation areas: problems with Natura 2000 implementation in Poland. Environmental Management 47: 1127.
Hall P.A. (1993) Policy paradigms, social learning, and the state: the case of economic policymaking in Britain. Comparative Politics 25: 275296.
Hicks B. (2004) Setting agendas and shaping activism: EU influence on Central and Eastern European environmental movements. Environmental Politics 13: 216233.
Hiedanpää J. (2005) The edges of conflict and consensus: a case for creativity in regional forest policy in southwest Finland. Ecological Economics 55: 485498.
Hysing E. & Olsson J. (2008) Contextualising the advocacy coalition framework: theorising change in Swedish forest policy. Environmental Politics 17: 730748.
Jordan A. & Greenaway J. (1998) Shifting agendas, changing regulatory structures and the ‘new’ politics of environmental pollution: British Coastal water policy, 1955–1995. Public Administration 76: 669694.
Keulartz J. (2009) European nature conservation and restoration policy-problems and perspectives. Restoration Ecology 17: 446450.
Kluvánková-Oravská T., Chobotová V., Banaszak I., Slavikova L. & Trifunovova S. (2009) From government to governance for biodiversity: the perspective of central and Eastern European transition countries. Environmental Policy and Governance 19: 186196.
Kovács A., Lovászi P., Magyar G., Nagy K., Szabó B. & Szilvácsku Zs., eds (2002) Proposed Special Protection Areas in Hungary. Budapest, Hungary: Hungarian Ornithological and Conservation Society, MME/BirdLife Hungary: 56 pp.
Lawrence A. (2008) Experiences with participatory conservation in post-socialist Europe. International Journal of Biodiversity Science and Management 4: 179186.
Marsh D. & Rhodes R.A.W. (1992) Policy networks in British politics: a critique of existing approaches. In: Policy Networks in British Government, ed. Marsh D. & Rhodes R.A.W., pp. 126. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
Miles B.M. & Huberman A.M. (1994) Qualitative Data Analysis. Beverly Hills, USA: SAGE Publications.
Niedziałkowski K., Paavola J. & Jędrzejewska B. (2012) Participation and protected areas governance: the impact of changing influence of local authorities on the conservation of the Bialowieza Primeval Forest, Poland. Ecology and Society 17: 2.
O'Riordan T &, Jordan A. (1996) Social institutions and climate change. In: The Politics of Climate Change: A European Perspective, ed. O'Riordan T. & Jager J., pp. 346360. London, UK: Routledge.
Paavola J., Gouldson A. & Kluvánková-Oravská T. (2009) Interplay of actors, scales, frameworks and regimes in the governance of biodiversity. Environmental Policy and Governance 19: 148158.
Peters B.G. (1998) Policy networks: myth, metaphor and reality. In: Comparing Policy Networks, ed. Marsh D., pp. 2132. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Pinton F. (2001) Conservation of biodiversity as a European directive: the challenge for France. Sociologia Ruralis 41: 329342.
Rauschmayer F., van den Hove S. & Koetz T. (2009) Participation in EU biodiversity governance: how far beyond rhetoric? Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 27: 4258.
Rhodes R.A.W. (1990) Policy networks. Journal of Theoretical Politics 2: 293317.
Sabatier P.A. (1998) The advocacy coalition framework: revisions and relevance for Europe. Journal of European Public Policy 5: 98130.
Sabatier P.A. & Jenkins-Smith H.C. (1999) The advocacy coalition framework: an assessment. In: Theories of the Policy Process. Theoretical Lenses on Public Policy, ed. Sabatier P.A., pp. 117168. Boulder, CO, USA: Westview Press.
Schlager E. (1995) Policy making and collective action: defining coalitions within the advocacy coalition framework. Policy Sciences 28: 243270.
Smith A. (2000) Policy networks and advocacy coalitions: explaining policy change and stability in UK industrial pollution policy? Environment and Planning C-Government and Policy 18:95114.
Szarka J. (2010) Bringing interests back in: using coalition theories to explain European wind power policies. Journal of European Public Policy 17: 836853.
Tickle A. & Clarke R. (2000) Nature and landscape conservation in transition in central and south-eastern Europe. European Environment 10: 211219.
Van Koppen C.S.A. & Markham W.T. (2007) Protecting Nature. Organizations and Networks in Europe and the USA. Chaltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Wajrak A. (2006) Premier: Mamy za dużo chronionej przyrody. Gazeta Wyborcza 7 August 2006.
Weale A., Pridham G., Cini M., Konstadakopulos D., Porter M. & Flynn B. (2000) Environmental governance in Europe: an ever closer ecological union? Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Weber N. & Christophersen T. (2002) The influence of non-governmental organisations on the creation of Natura 2000 during the European policy process. Forest Policy and Economics 4: 112.
Ziemińska J. & Szulecki K. (2010) The river that divided a nation: rhetoric, environmental activism and the political controversy over the Rospuda River Valley in Poland. ESPRi Working Paper No 1. February 2010 [www document]. URL http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1680789
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Environmental Conservation
  • ISSN: 0376-8929
  • EISSN: 1469-4387
  • URL: /core/journals/environmental-conservation
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords:

Type Description Title
WORD
Supplementary Materials

CENT, J. Supplementary Material
Appendix

 Word (21 KB)
21 KB

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 11
Total number of PDF views: 184 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 208 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 21st November 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.