index

Precisely these examples give us an idea of the difficulty of putting the
Natura 2000 Network concept across to the readers. To begin with,
it is a diffuse concept that encompasses too many things and where
different levels of protection (National Parks, Natural Parks, Protected
Sites, Regional Parks, Biosphere Reserves, etc.) overlap. The matter
becomes even more complex if we start talking about SCIs, SCAs and
SPAs, so you end up talking about protected sites or places of interest
in general because you cannot go into all the acronyms or explain the
differences between them.
In the second place, the fact that the concept appears in stories about
the design of the river Ebro water transfer also gives us a clue that it is a
very common type of protection status. We must acknowledge that the
territory involved in the transfer was quite large -it spanned more than
900 kilometres- but also that there are many areas within the Natura
Network. As I said earlier, if something is usual and common it is more
difficult to make it news material.
In the third place, another key I have spotted when it comes to informing
about the Natura 2000 Network is that, due precisely to their scarcity,
marine sites are more easily communicated than land sites. The cause
lies in that there are many less marine sites in the network. Also in that
there is less overlapping of protection statuses – derived from the sad
fact that our seas enjoy a much lower level or protection than our land
territory. In Spain there are 1.982 land areas and 108 marine areas
within the Natura 2000 Network.
“It is necessary to get on the field and put a face to the
Natura Network, to communicate it in positive terms, to
emphasize its European character and to think outside the
box to make it news material. ”
Natura 2000 Network. Handbook for journalists 25