It would be interesting to know which pesticides must have a part in the 89.3% of destruction you mentioned?

I would propose a Dutch contribution on a similar example

http://www.plosone.org/article/metrics/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0062374;jsessionid=20E4DEEF66963CC04352348B65860FC2

I think this is an issue which totally depends on the model of implementation of Natura 2000 management adopted - policies which are determined nationally or typically sub-nationally (provincially etc.). There are good examples and poor examples of site conservation management but it is ultimately about the policies adopted, not the designation per se. So be very careful about sweeping generalisations!

Agricultural intensification is driven by subsidies; if these are not conservation friendly (defined in RDP) the conservation status of some species will inevitably deteriorate (this is the case with many grassland species).

On the other hand, Natura 2000 is as much as a norm also a tool to be used - it doesn't necessarily work by itself. So use this tool... but expect to end up in court if there is big money behind agricultural intensification (there usually is).

We studied the role of protected areas in preserving habitat connectivity in southeast of Spain (most of them Natura 2000 sites) modelling land use changes from 1991 to 2015. We found that habitat connectivity will decrease in the near future within and in the surroundings of Natura 2000 sites (see Fig. 6 of paper below):

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1617138112000647

This second aspect, the lost of connectivity within the surroundings of Natura 2000 sites, should be also regarded as an important landscape process because without a functional landscape matrix, the Natura 2000 sites will be islands of biodiversity (more or less rich) that will not provide services and will not function at regional or global scales. -> So I will like to rise the question here (a bit of topic from the modelling perspective): are Natura 2000 sites functioning as sources or sinks of biodiversity?

As said above, much depends on how legislation is implemented which clearly varies and the phenomena of 'paper parks' is (unfortunately) well known.

A recent study from the Netherlands might be of interest here - Wamelink et al. (2013). Considerable environmental bottlenecks for species listed in the Habitats and Birds Directives in the Netherlands. Biological Conservation, 165, 43-53. (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320713001523)

Assessing the effectiveness of conservation policies, like Natura 2000, is highly relevant, but also very complex. There will never be a direct relation between a policy and spatial transformation as my research towards the implementation of the Birds and Habitats Directives in the Netherlands has shown. Even in those situations where Natura 2000 sites and specific species and habitats are fairly well protected, this will rarely be a direct result of the EU directives, but more likely the effect of prior policies, the efforts of conservation organisations, or the lack of people willing to develop activities with a potential negative impact. The other side is more well known, policies and laws that are in place, but do not really influence decision-making and the behavior of people and thus do not really contribute to conservation. Or worse, situations in which the implementation of conservation policies hampers conservation efforts, as we have seen in the Netherlands.

Assessing the real effects of conservation policies requires a close collaboration between social and environmental scientists; interdisciplinary teams that can analyse the social, political, legal, and economic dynamics and their effects on the environment, as well as the changes in ecosystems and species populations. Studies need to be carried out over a longer period of time and include a lot of empirical work (not just modelling). As far as I am aware such studies have rarely been carried out.

excellent question! I wil ty to forward this to our Natura2000 project managers in Brussels, Greetings Klaus

Alessandro makes an excellent point. Integrated modelling of the effects of climate, land use and hydrological change on these sites is essential for developing decision making tools for planning and development of mitigation measures for these important sites - as well as a tool for calculating cost! This is particularly important for the Mediterranean region - such as southern Portugal, which will be highly vulnerable to climate change effects. A multidisciplinary approach is essential

A trend similar to that shown by the Portuguese colleagues occurs in Sicilian temporary ponds. They are listed among priority habitats but since they appear as land depressions during the dry phase, they are seen as perfect places to be filled with wastes or (especially for those located near the sea shore) to create car parkings. The disappearing of these ecosystems make them more and more "isolated" diminishing their connectivity and making more difficult those dispersal/colonization events that contribute to manitain their biodiversity.

The nature-agriculture controversy is a widespread phenomena througout Europe. Losses of nutrients, groundwater depletion and (potentialy) climate change are the main causes. The FP7 project ECLAIRE is studying the subject. See also my plea for a coherent European policy to reduce ammonia emissions in and around Natura2000 sites. http://www.iiasa.ac.at/web/home/research/researchPrograms/MitigationofAirPollutionandGreenhousegases/10._Maas_Clean_Air_for_Nature.pdf

I think a good answer is provided by the: "Composite Report on the Conservation Status of Habitat Types and Species as required under Article 17 of the Habitats Directive" it is necessary to read all the report anyhow some significant points are: "For the first time, the EU has carried out a comprehensive assessment of the status of its most vulnerable habitats and species across 25 Member States and 11 (seven land and four marine) bio-geographic regions." ... "The results of the 2001-2006 reports show that for many of the habitats and species listed under the Habitats Directive, favourable conservation status has not been achieved either at national or bio-geographic regional level. Nevertheless, there are indications that in some cases the trend is positive. We will need to await the results of the next round of monitoring and reporting before these trends can be confirmed." Next round monitorgin should be 2013.

Reports for the next Article 17 report have started to be delivered (see http://bd.eionet.europa.eu/activities/Reporting/Article_17/Reports_2013/Member_State_Deliveries) although it'll be some time before all 27 countries have delivered (final deadline for corrected reports is end of 2013) & then assembled.

I wonder whether in many cases the Reports required under Article 17 do indeed reflect the conservation status of species and habitats and the effectiveness of Natura 2000. In at least some cases that I'm aware, these Reporst tend to be rather political documents (they are prepared by governamental agencies!), and they are often not sufficiently backed by hard scientific data. Of course this is certainly very different from country to country. Anyway, I think we are missing truly independente evaluations of conservation effectiveness of these policies, preferably published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. It would be nice to develop case studies across Europe, using comparable methodological approaches. This would be essential to detect best practice as well as implementation problems, thereby providing information that could improve European biodiversity conservation policies.

I had a little personal experience on Natura 2000 sites of Central Italy (as ecologist). My personal experience in this case, emphasizes that told by Alessandro Ferrarini. So, Biologists working alone + Botanists working alone + absence of Agricultural figures = results without a decisional model, suitable to help the policies.

I think that is impossible generalize, but some basis can be identified, at European level, to guarantee the better application of the Natura 2000 framework. Furthermore, is wrong (from my point of view) discuss for example about HNV farmlands in Agricultural office, and about Natura 2000 and protected area, instead in Environmental office. Is clear how much these arguments are overlapped. But the different levels of discussion could create an illusion of "mismatch spatial".

Perhaps, "complex countries" have ever more need "simple frameworks" to be able to fulfill their goals. I share the scheme by Ferrarini:

DATA ---> ANALYSIS--> INFORMATION-->DECISION MODEL-->CONSERVATION

In our experience, the scheme was stopped in the "information" stage. However, if we can finish the scheme, the suggestion made by pedro Beja "develop case studies across Europe, using comparable methodological approaches" could be the key to finally can evaluate the effectiveness of the Natura2000 strategies.

I agree in many things with Dr. Morelli. I think the Natura 2000 is only a limited frame opportunity, where ecologists can take a biodiversity inventory and verify its timely and spatial changes. A scientist may be in most cases an exclamation mark. The main actors are economic leaders then after a wide gap they are followed by policy makers. Without understanding and benevolence of company managers Natura 2000 is a cry into the desert or a teeny-weeny game for zoologists and botanists. With instruction and information of the public there is a tiny opportunity to change the general views of the decision-makers at the end points.

The new list of funded LIFE project has just been published: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-13-638_en.htm Hopefully this helps Nature!

We studied the effectiveness of natura 2000 sites and there are some more paper cited that did that on a lower scale.

You can find the paper here:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232710682_Mind_the_gap!__How_well_does_Natura_2000_cover_species_of_European_interest

Regards, Bernd

Article "Mind the gap!" – How well does Natura 2000 cover species of...

We did a gap analysis of wetland species in the Natura 2000 network and found that several wide-ranging vertebrates are not able to form a viable population inside the Natura 2000 reserves.

You can find the paper here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225262697_Gap_analysis_of_European_wetland_species_priority_regions_for_expanding_the_Natura_2000_network

Article Gap analysis of European wetland species: Priority regions f...

An article assessing the Natura 2000 network with common bird species: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/acv.12030/abstract

Really interesting article! Thanks Caterina....

Hi,

We analysed presence data and percentage populations within the Natura 2000 network for the four dragonfly species (Macromia splendens, Oxygastra curtisii, Gomphus graslinii and Coenagrion mercuriale) protected undo Habitats Directive in Spain (other odonata species or are not in Spain or they have not presently known populations). You can read the chapters of this evaluation here:

Macromia splendens http://www.researchgate.net/publication/236655492_Macromia_splendens

Coenagrion mercuriale http://www.researchgate.net/publication/236667707_Coenagrion_mercuriale

Oxygastra curtisii http://www.researchgate.net/publication/236632685_Oxygastra_curtisii

Gomphus graslinii http://www.researchgate.net/publication/236683564_Gomphus_graslinii

However, data from each space on the species situation prior to the declaration as Natura network are lacking.

kindest regards

Chapter Macromia splendens

Chapter Coenagrion mercuriale

Chapter Oxygastra curtisii

Chapter Gomphus graslinii

Antonio - do you know if there is a similar series of publications for Spanish vertebrates ? (there is also a series for Annex I habitat types - see http://www.magrama.gob.es/es/biodiversidad/temas/espacios-protegidos/red-natura-2000/rn_tip_hab_esp_bases_eco_preliminares.aspx )

Hi Douglas,

I think that the same work was realized with vertebrates too (this year governments should send the reports of Article 17 of Habitats Directive) but are not publications yet (we finished the work with invertebrates in 2010 and was published 2012... Spanish Ministry is slow)...

Thanks, I have seen the first Spanish delivery for Article 17 - not examined it in any detail but its seems an improvement over the previous report which had many gaps

I particularly like the study of Araújo, M.B., et al., Climate change threatens European conservation areas. Ecology Letters, 2011. 14(5): p. 484-492. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3116148/)

where they investigate the current and future climate suitability of the red Natura 200o for over 2000 different species.

It's great to have studies on the effectiveness of Natura 2000 sites. It's also good to take a step back and look at if from the past policy perspective and ask the question: Were these sites chosen so as to form a coherent network of ecosystems that allow durable conservation of species of the habitats and bird directives?

The very obvious answer is NO. They were chosen based on what nature we had left in each member state, and subsequent compromises with other land use. Most of the time, the designation of these sites had little if anything to do with spatial coherence, or with ensuring that habitat requirements of all species were covered.

This becomes especially obvious in Belgium, where so-called designated areas are often just the sum of dozens of isolated and tiny fragments. The entire designated area "Forests and calcareous grasslands of Haspengouw" is c. 2.6 km2, but it is spread over 24 sites scattered in a matrix of 1500 km2. Take a look at the Natura2000 viewer. http://natura2000.eea.europa.eu/#

Hence, asking how well Natura2000 is protecting biodiversity is like breaking in an open door: it's doing a pretty poor job at it and that's the consequence of designation based on wrong criteria. Natura2000 is a not work instead of a network.

Unfortunately, we can't turn back the time and redraw the Natura2000 map. So now we should try to anwer this question: how can we make the best of a bad Natura2000 job? Where should we focus? Where should we enlarge and when is connection a better option? How can we reduce the imminent extinction debt?

@Joachim

Well, that is slightly one-sided view I think, that the site selection is a poor job....

This refutes the tremendous work of the Topic centre, that discussed with the countries the selection of sites. It also denies the work done by many of the countries to increase the coherence of the network. In the Netherlands we have the Ecological Main Structure, Germany recently produced a blue print of a network, and many more countries do work on this, to some extent. See our paper on ecological networks in Europe.

Of course, much has to be done still... and there are many challenges, like climate change, and lack of coherence. But still, it has been an enormouse effort in Europe, and Natura2000 has been a landmark in conservation policy, in my opinion.

Article Ein europäischer Biotopverbund - Herausforderungen an den eu...

Theo, I agree that the situation in Belgium is probably much worse than in our neighbouring countries, but still I can't shrug off the impression that the designation was based on "what do we have left" more than "what do we need".

At least for Belgium, the first step was to designate Natura2000 sites. This was partly based on which of the annex II and IV species were present at that time. Note that this list of species represents an extremely biased sample of species, geographically and taxonomically. Next, based on what was (historically) present in these sites, other target species and habitats were associated to these sites. Still later, criteria for Favourable Conservation Status (FCS) were formulated. So before we knew what the biased set of species minimally needed, the sites had been designated already. I am sure the topic centre is doing its utmost best, but it doesn't change that the logic of conservation planning was largely reversed. I'm not sure about the order in which other countries in Europe proceeded, but I guess it's pretty similar.

Hence, the many papers telling that N2000 isn't working properly shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. I'm not telling that it is a complete disaster either. N2000 and European legislation is the main reason N-Belgium (and other regions in Europe too) hasn't become a complete biodiversity desert. Designation-wise, however, some very bad choices have been made ...

And note that European biodiversity is more than the sum of the Annex II and IV species. For policy, however, the need to protect European biodiversity is currently at risk of being reduced to getting a FCS-label for these annex II and IV species. The annex species are no longer a means to preserve biodiversity in general, but are becoming a goal per sé.

Just have a look at the number of endangered species in Europe! I think the figures speak for themselves.

But,... Maybe,... without Natura 2000 it could have been much worse.

Who will tell? Nature 2000?

Frank

Joachim & Theo - part of the problem is that the Natura 2000 network is in many cases a collection of previously protected areas (nature reserves, national parks, etc), partly in some areas these were the only areas with natural habitats left in a highly modified landscape but also because they were less difficult administratively & politically (see last year's EEA report on protected areas). The sites should have been selected based on Annexes I & II while the criteria for FCS are in the 1992 Directive (see Article 1).

During the biogeographical seminars the NGOs, ETC/BD & the Commission tried to address the gaps as best we could & in some countries greatly increased the N° of sites (e.g. the UK - still very low but at least twice what was originally proposed).

As for the list of habitats & species for Natura 2000, did you know the original habitat lists were by Belgium professors ?

Hi Joachim,

I think that in most countries the selection of sites depended very much on what was there already.... In the Netherlands this was the existing EHS, National Ecological Network, and the areas under N2000 were much aligned with this.

In other countries we see the same. This is not per sé bad, often these arethe most valued natural sites. Also, the species of the annexes are the most critical species generally.

Of course, not all species are covered in the annexes, but probably they are within the SPAs and SACs.

I agree that the selection of N2000 sites is (often?) influenced by political and economical factors... In the Netherlands the Blacktailed gotwit, once common in farmland, strongly declined, but it is not included as breeding bird for the Netherlands - and therefore no specific management targets are set for this species. But still the Dutch government monitors how these species, for which no areas were selected, are developing and which measures are effective.

We did for the Govt. of Luxembourg an evaluation of the SPA network, where there was initially a bias, mostly towards forest bird species which occurred within the exising protected areas network. Brussels (the Topic Centre) questioned the selection, and with our evaluation of sites the SPA area network is currently expanded, also with areas for farmland species, which have overlap with some IBAs.

So in my opinion N2000 works fairly well, in most countries. And the topic centre has influenced much the selction of sites, to ensure a proper protection of all species.

But, you are right of course that not all countries have the same robust network of protected areas!

Book Luxembourg and the Birds Directive. Analysis of necessity an...

For Belgium I could indicate a number of regions (not sites) which should get a more stringent policy on nature conservation. One of them is the Ardennes region. This is a large and pretty unique region in Europe which deserves a better nature protection.

But this will be a tough job. Something comparable to the French 'Parcs Regionals', or why not 'Parc Nationals' should come into existence for a durable regional policy for the Ardennes.

The Ardennes should not (only) become a playground for tourism, hunting, 4wheel driving and motocross fans and all those other activities, which ultimately destroy the many unique parts of the region. Also urbanisation should be planned more rigorously. More and more houses are built along roads instead of in village nuclei. For the Ardennes it is 1 minute before 12. Even wildlife is not natural (any more). Deer are fed in winter, wild boar are fed in winter for the simple reason that they can be hunted in larger quantities - they are cattle-ised so to say - to end up on the plates of exquiste Ardennes restaurants. All of this is (rather) big business.The effect however on the Ardennes semi-natural forests is disastrous. Wild boar destroy lower vegetation as well as the top soil and hence many species of mushrooms in the forests, which are so-called protected ;-) disappear. Hence biodiversity goes down by these practices. The answer of the hunters and regional government? Let's hunt more ;-), wild boar destroy our forests !!!?

Belgian and especially Walloon politicians should act now. They have the leverage to do something about this deplorable state of the Ardennes. Not words but deeds now. Don't make a junk-yard of the Ardennes, while they can still be turned into a magnificent regional natural parc, the size of two Belgian provinces

Cheers,

Frank

The science and research oriented discussions quantify the results on endangered biodiversity, landscapes, and more negative information, inspite of the conservation programs, resources, monitoring and research. The other discussion on research of natural and cultural landscapes (see the link bellow) presents objective facts on trends, such as the one summarizing “…with 7 billion people currently living in the planet... most landscapes in the near future will be cultural" (by Pedro Beja, see the link bellow). The question is why?

Why the efficacy of conservation sciences and conservation related activities of mankind (CA) such as the Natura 2000, other conservation programs, conservation and monitoring technologies, education, economic and human resources, and parks - is generally insufficient?

It is not the CA that impairs biodiversity, and eco-quality (EQ) of the planet subsystems. So what is the key problem, and solutions?

The key problem is the industry; It is the traditional and new industries, with their continuing research, design and economy of new products, materials, services, and unavoidable continuing improving quality and technical and economy efficacy.

The effective ecological and enviromental solutions could be as follows: (1) Intensifying research of methods of increasing efficacy of knowledge and technology. (2) Transfer your knowledge to the identifying of the key problem. (3) Transfer your knowledge and results to the key problem solution. (4) Propose tranfer of your results to the main sources of the negative environmental changes, to the key troublemakers.

The conservation activities could not be effective without the interdisciplinary transfer to the causes, to the main factors of negative trends. Without the interdisciplinary communication, the conservation efficacy could not be increased.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Are_Cultural_landscapes_valuable_for_nature_conservation12?cp=re65_x_p3&ch=reg&loginT=2_p20g5Br2wXrkZqHFI5QLq0fj8GV_yvAsUvq82QZnjBkkLN3pe5zA%2C%2C&pli=1#view=528af978d3df3e1f448b47ff

The question does not make clear reasons why the site was declared an SCI. If any Amphibian species was mentioned as a reason, or even if any previously unmentioned Annex II Amphibian is known to occur or to have occurred at the site, any action (icluding agricultural intensification) resuting detrimental for the conservation of such species is explicilally forbidden by law. The inlementation of any such action should be reported to i) local authorities, ii) the Ministry for the Environment, iii) the European Commission. Failure to stop detrimental actions may well result in a procedure of infraction by the EU.

Good luck,

Emilio Balletto

In Calabria (Southern Italy) the establishment of a Regional Ecological Network (RER CALABRIA) could be the best solution to protect and to improve our natural heritage in a land-sea conservation program for an integrated landcape planning. This program is, actually, in its first stage for the inertia of State and Regional authorities. However it is necessary to establish a functional connectivity amongst protected areas through fluvial and ecological corridors along the regional catchments (Cantasano et al.2012).

About the problems concerning the implementation of Natura 2000 an the role of corridors, I suggest the following readings:

- Shields, F.D., Cooper Jr., C.M., Knight, S.S., Moore, T.T. (2003). Stream corridor restoration research: a long and winding road. Ecological Engineering, 20, 441-454.

- Horskins, K., Mather, P.B., Wilson, J.C. (2006). Corridors and connectivity: when use and function do not equate. Landscape Ecology, 21, 641-655.

Nicola

It is my own impression only, but I don't see any big difference between Natura2000 and other sites in Latvia. According to the local lows clear-cuts can be done only when coniferous trees reach the age of 100 years in Latvia. However, after the economy crisis state forests are clear cut when the trees reach the age of 50 years including Natura2000 areas. I am sure that the quality of protection and biodiversity in Nature2000 sites should be reassessed across Europe like this is already done by Dr.Beja.

Apologies if you have already seen this report entitled 'Wildlife Comeback in Europe', which gives a positive outlook for a selection/selective number of mammal (18) and bird (19) species. What are peoples general thoughts/experiences about this across other species / habitats?

http://www.zsl.org/science/research-projects/indicators-assessments/wildlife-comeback,2217,AR.html

For aquatic habitats, especially those with hydropower potential (i.e. flowing water) the future in Europe looks grim unless we can convince governments to reject the present mania associated with unlimited hydropower expansion. The stance in Austria at the present time, expanding into southeast Europe, is that hydropower is compatible with Natura 2000 areas, and in other countries this concept is even expanding into National parks, where hydropower is touted as "sustainable use". If specific aquatic species are not listed as an aim of protection in a Natura 2000 species, or the claim is that the impact from a hydropower plant is not a "significant" reduction on the "national" population of the species, then the government here seems to think they can expand hydropower into almost ever single Natura 2000 area containing a river. Further, attempts to name new sites with hydropower potential are essentially blocked by the government. The EU is presently challenging Austria on these issues - but as these cases drag on, the mentality is spreading rapidly.

Dear all,

These articles might be also of your interest:

*Europe Needs a New Vision for a Natura 2020 Network (pages 462–467)

Axel Hochkirch, Thomas Schmitt, Joscha Beninde, Marietta Hiery, Tim Kinitz, Jenny Kirschey, Daniela Matenaar, Katja Rohde, Aleke Stoefen, Norman Wagner, Andreas Zink, Stefan Lötters, Michael Veith and Alexander Proelss

Article first published online: 25 JAN 2013 | DOI: 10.1111/conl.12006

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/conl.12006/abstract

*How Much Biodiversity does Natura 2000 Cover? (pages 470–471)

Axel Hochkirch, Thomas Schmitt, Joscha Beninde, Marietta Hiery, Tim Kinitz, Jenny Kirschey, Daniela Matenaar, Katja Rohde, Aleke Stoefen, Norman Wagner, Andreas Zink, Stefan Lötters, Michael Veith and Alexander Proelss

Article first published online: 12 JUN 2013 | DOI: 10.1111/conl.12037

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/conl.12037/full

Dear Maria,

Thank you for the literature suggestions. Particularly the first article puts forward some interesting ideas for a futher debate.

The article addresses some of the issues that Natura 2000 is facing. Although one can hardly disagree with the suggestions that are given to tackle these issues, I think these largely ignore the complex social reality in which they are supposed to be introduced and gain effect. Without political consensus on the significant increase of financial means for Natura 2000 they are unlikely to be implemented. Within the current context, chances are slim that the EU or member states will increase the budgets for nature conservation. In the Netherlands for example, the opposite is true.

It is of course necessary to implement sustainable land-use practices in and around Natura 2000 sites, but this for certain will invoke conflicts with other stakeholders and therefor requires time, political will and sufficient funds. If these are lacking, there is a real possibility that land-use practices will be anything but sustainable. Involving stakeholders might be an option, but the effects this will gain largely depend of the specific context as well and can thus not be considered a panacea (see e.g. some research finding about management of the Danube Delta.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/50853720_Delineating_locals_Transformations_of_knowledgepower_and_the_governance_of_the_Danube_delta?ev=prf_pub

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229090814_Crossing_trails_in_the_marshes_rigidity_and_flexibility_in_the_governance_of_the_Danube_Delta?ev=prf_pub

Furthermore it is important not to overestimate the impact of plans as means for steering and thus achieving a favourable conservation status of Natura 2000 sites. Surely plans can be useful, but if political commitment and financial means to implement them are lacking, they will most likely to disappear in a drawer. Even in the Netherlands, a country with a rich tradition in spatial planning, the obligation to write management plans only strengthened the tensions between nature conservation and other land use activities.

Enhancing monitoring, the formulation of management plans and the implementation of the necessary conservation measures requires a lot of money; money that is often not available. Without sufficient funds, other options might need to be explored to enhance conservation and achieve sustainable land-use practices. Many of the solutions might need to be search for on the local or regional level, taking into account the particular political, social and economic context there. Despite all problems and conflicts, there are also many good practices and examples. It would be interesting to study why some actions have sort good results in some situations, while similar or others actions did not so in other places. Such research might give insights in why the interplay of social problems is so complex and how it influences Natura 2000 (probably with different answers found in different places), and enrich and fuel the search for context-sensitive approaches and solutions.

Article Delineating Locals: Transformations of Knowledge/Power and t...

Article Crossing trails in the marshes: rigidity and flexibility in ...

I would agree with Raoul that the papers by Axel Hochkirch & colleagues underplay the social & political aspects of nature conservation. Some criticisms were included in a reply from Dirk Maes et al - see http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/conl.12030/abstract

Just one example:

KONVIČKA M. BENEŠ J., ČÍŽEK O., KOPEČEK F., KONVIČKA O., VIŤAZ L., 2008: How too much care kills species: Grassland reserves, agri-environmental schemes and

extinction of Colias myrmidone butterfly from its former stronghold. – Journal

of Insect Conservation 12: 519–525.

http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/422/art%253A10.1007%252Fs10841-007-9092-7.pdf?auth66=1386933751_caeb18e24940d67d06c13a85d3b946a4&ext=.pdf

Hello to all if anybody still follow this topic.

I'm dealing with one Natura 2000 site in Croatia under heavy pollution pressure (river in contact karst area, polution from damp site and sewerage). The problem is in badly delineation of borders not including larger catchment area but only small part of river bed. Is there any updates on this topic - newer articles with examples please? I'm interested in various habitats, not only karst, water, but all good examples. Thank you.