policymaking, involving stakeholders in nature protection, was embedded in this national project whichfeeds into national nature policy.The mapping project reflected <strong>the</strong> fact that Norway carries out interactive policymaking. The project involvedmapping <strong>the</strong> central mountain ridge area of Norway, so that on <strong>the</strong> map it formed one big park, thiscould be seen as a type of ecological network. This was a unique method compared to <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r countriesin this report, as local stakeholders created <strong>the</strong> collection of data and drawing up of maps. This typeof policy formation and implementation has been carried out by ‘experts’ in o<strong>the</strong>r countries that are includedin <strong>the</strong> report. The interviewees in Norway also automatically identified <strong>the</strong> importance of social knowledgein nature policy decision-making, something not so evident in o<strong>the</strong>r countries in <strong>the</strong> report.Opportunities and challenges identified by respondents for development of an ecological network included<strong>the</strong> need for integration of government departments, <strong>the</strong> need to resolve potential conflicts betweenstakeholders with strong and differing opinions of nature and raising <strong>the</strong> awareness of people about natureand <strong>the</strong> need to protect it.Cross border cooperation exists but generally only at <strong>the</strong> municipality level. Research had been carriedout on concepts such as ecological corridors in Norway. With regards to awareness of PEEN <strong>the</strong>re wasgenerally a lack of awareness as to what it was and a lack of recognition of <strong>the</strong> need for a national ecologicalnetwork in a country such as Norway, ra<strong>the</strong>r than any strong negative feelings against such a concept.35
2.7 United Kingdom 6IntroductionIn <strong>the</strong> United Kingdom, <strong>the</strong> Natura 2000 <strong>Network</strong> is well established and fur<strong>the</strong>r supported by policy strategiessuch as <strong>the</strong> UK Biodiversity Strategy, which involves <strong>the</strong> implementation of national and localBiodiversity Action Plans, to protect nature in <strong>the</strong> UK. Whilst Natura 2000 implementation is as far as ecologicalnetworks currently go in national legislation <strong>the</strong>re is high awareness and strong opinion amongstmost UK policymakers, scientists and NGOs about <strong>the</strong> concept of ecological networks. Whilst <strong>the</strong> conceptof a National <strong>Ecological</strong> <strong>Network</strong> was generally supported by those interviewed, different stakeholdersin <strong>the</strong> UK may have a different interpretation as to what <strong>the</strong>y perceive as an ecological network. Thesedifferent opinions and <strong>the</strong> fact that <strong>the</strong> concept does not have sufficient political priority at <strong>the</strong> moment,means that <strong>the</strong> process of creation and implementation of a network beyond a Natura 2000 <strong>Network</strong> ismoving slowly. It was thought by many respondents that <strong>the</strong> concept of ecological networks will becomea higher priority in nature policy in <strong>the</strong> future.Physical aspectsThe UK has implemented <strong>the</strong> Natura 2000 <strong>Network</strong> requirements, this includes <strong>the</strong> creation of maps. As<strong>the</strong> UK does have a high awareness of <strong>the</strong> ecological network concept it was of more interest in <strong>the</strong> interviewsto not reflect too greatly on <strong>the</strong> physical aspects of <strong>the</strong> Natura 2000 <strong>Network</strong> and instead to concentrateon what fur<strong>the</strong>r work has been carried out in <strong>the</strong> UK to create an ecological network, such as thatdefined by <strong>the</strong> PEEN.The government agency that is responsible for implementing <strong>the</strong> concept of ecological networks inEngland confirmed that ecological thinking had evolved over <strong>the</strong> years into a sophisticated framework thatincorporated landscapes in a hierarchical and geographical framework. This framework, supported by <strong>the</strong>government agencies, allows <strong>the</strong>m to understand <strong>the</strong> differences in ecological processes and featuresacross <strong>the</strong> whole of England in ways which relate to landscapes. Information can be inputted into <strong>the</strong> frameworkthat enables consideration of <strong>the</strong> impact on different sectors and different issues. The frameworkcan look at different wildlife and vegetation patterns and establish which different types of ecological frameworkwould be required for a successful network. The government agency for nature has started tofund a series of projects at <strong>the</strong> landscape scale, engaging stakeholders, in order to restore more landscapesin line with this framework. Within <strong>the</strong> framework, ecological networks, corridors, buffer zones andstepping-stones play key roles. This framework can be known by <strong>the</strong> phrase <strong>the</strong> “Countryside CharacterApproach”, it is currently also used by o<strong>the</strong>r agencies, such as <strong>the</strong> Rural Development Service, for agrienvironmentalscheme work.During <strong>the</strong> interviews, when respondents were asked whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> UK has any type of ecological networkmap, over and above <strong>the</strong> Natura 2000 requirements, <strong>the</strong>re were a variety of differing opinions. This includeddiffering opinions as to whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong>re was any type of ecological network map and some respondentsquestioned whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong>re was a need for such a map. One respondent thought that <strong>the</strong> ecologicalnetwork ‘framework’ created by <strong>the</strong> government agencies’ “Countryside Character Approach” was moreimportant than a map, as <strong>the</strong> ecological network is something that <strong>the</strong> government agencies want to developwithin this framework. A map was not always considered to be as important by some respondents atthis point in time. If a map were to be produced it was considered that <strong>the</strong> key aspects would be a spatialplanning approach linking core areas at regional scale.O<strong>the</strong>r respondents thought that <strong>the</strong> Countryside Character Approach had created an area map and thatwas what <strong>the</strong>y would consider to be <strong>the</strong> official documentation of <strong>the</strong> ecological network. However <strong>the</strong>ydoubted that <strong>the</strong> scale of this map would give sufficiently detailed information for an ecological network.6 The United Kingdom interviewees included representatives from <strong>the</strong> following sectors: <strong>the</strong> Government departmentrepresentatives for national nature policy, farming association, woodland conservation NGO, researcher/scientist, nationalhighways (transport) agency and <strong>the</strong> national agency for implementation of nature conservation policy. The UK wasselected, as it is a North Western <strong>European</strong> country with a growing interest in ecological networks.36
- Page 1 and 2: european centre for nature conserva
- Page 3 and 4: Published by:This publication was m
- Page 5 and 6: Executive SummaryIn 2003, ECNC publ
- Page 7 and 8: ●●The study has highlighted the
- Page 9 and 10: NetherlandsEstoniaNorwayUnited King
- Page 11 and 12: PEEN - a Europe wide ecological net
- Page 13 and 14: Experiences at the EU level, regard
- Page 15 and 16: there may also be huge variations i
- Page 17 and 18: on the effectiveness of implementat
- Page 19 and 20: e the working group involving natio
- Page 21 and 22: Opportunities or challenges for eco
- Page 24 and 25: As mentioned above, there are a lot
- Page 26 and 27: It was felt by some respondents tha
- Page 28 and 29: gained by the work of the NGOs, sci
- Page 30 and 31: nature conservation societies (Prov
- Page 32 and 33: ● Local level support for interna
- Page 34 and 35: istics of the Norwegian landscape,
- Page 38 and 39: Some respondents thought a map was
- Page 40 and 41: semi-natural habitats. One responde
- Page 42 and 43: In Scotland, there is a lot of work
- Page 44 and 45: policymakers, researchers, scientis
- Page 46 and 47: Experience and expertise:Over the p
- Page 48 and 49: knowledge also exists regarding the
- Page 50 and 51: At an international level, this is
- Page 52 and 53: lack of integration of policies reg
- Page 54 and 55: ottom-up approach of PEEN requires
- Page 56 and 57: 5 ReferencesSandra Rientjes & Kater
- Page 58 and 59: Methodological Outline●●●●
- Page 60 and 61: CPA 1 A3Communicating PEENDESK STUD
- Page 62 and 63: IntroductionThe desk review of the
- Page 64 and 65: The following two tables, adapted f
- Page 66 and 67: Habitats DirectiveAssessment of the
- Page 68 and 69: Ramsar ConventionAssessment of the
- Page 70 and 71: Assessment ofCommunication,Educatio
- Page 72 and 73: and other European states, four rep
- Page 74 and 75: The Act on Sustainable Development
- Page 76 and 77: In Germany nature conservation by l
- Page 78 and 79: The management of protected areas f
- Page 80 and 81: The NvM and the NMP4 are devoted to
- Page 82 and 83: Assessment of policy and legislatio
- Page 84 and 85: A Species Action Plan (SAP) has bee
- Page 86 and 87:
CPA 1 A3Communicating PEENExecutive
- Page 88 and 89:
Practical experiences with developi