CASE STUDY BRIEF: This case study of argumentation processes explores argumentation effectiveness based on the relevance and credibility of the argument and arguer for the intended audiences and within different situations. By examining these argumentative interactions the findings indicate that identifying common ground contributes to effective outcomes by providing possibilities for mutual benefit. Where this is not possible, a strong policy framework is essential.
This case study of peat extraction and biodiversity conservation shows how nature-related arguments have evolved in time and varied in different phases of the policy process and in different institutional settings. In addition to the specific issue of peat extraction, the arguments reflect more general changes in attitude taking place within the society.
CASE STUDY BRIEF: In Norwegian wildlands, free grazing of sheep is widespread, roe deer and moose populations are large and intensively managed for hunting, and populations of large carnivores (wolf, brown bear, lynx) are recovering from previous lows. Stakeholder groups differ in how they value the different ecosystem services provided by these large mammals, and the current management policy is hotly contested. To sway the debate in their favour, different stakeholders use different arguments. We identified three distinct lines of argumentation emphasising different value orientations – intrinsic, cultural, and utilitarian. Yet common to all was the appeal for clearer management practices to harmonise the policies of different sectors.
CASE STUDY BRIEF: The obligation to commit to EU legislation was used by the national government of the Netherlands as a powerful argument during the first phase of Natura 2000 implementation. However, this argument resulted in resistance against N2000 and concern it was hampering other interests like economic development. During later phases of the designation process, more stakeholders were involved and participatory processes were set-up to gain stakeholders’ support. This stimulated the use of a broader range of arguments including those that emphasize the value of services provided by nature, such as recreation and value for future generations.
CASE STUDY BRIEF: This policy brief follows the evolution of arguments, their efficiency and shortcomings, over a relatively long time period (1991–2012) which covers EU accession and economic transition in Romania. The arguments identified played crucial roles in obtaining formal protected area status (Ramsar Site, Natura 2000 site Natural Park) and in the process of development and implementation of management plans.
CASE STUDY BRIEF: This case study examines arguments surrounding the legal adoption of the European Commission Regulation (EU) 1143/2014 on the prevention and management of the introduction and spread of invasive alien species. This is set in the context of the observed scientific and political reasoning on invasive alien species and existing values for biodiversity.
CASE STUDY BRIEF: This case study traces the development of public debate following the comeback of the red fox and wild boar in Flanders, Belgium, through observing a variety of forums (mass and social media, parliament, organisations’ magazines and websites, etc.). The findings demonstrate that conflict and polarisation of opinions were not merely a manifestation of incompatible interests, goals and visions, but were heavily influenced by the dynamics of the debate itself. These dynamics were largely a result of the contending parties’ efforts to enhance the effectiveness of their own arguments, and succeeded only in hampering resolution.
CASE STUDY BRIEF: This case study of stakeholder engagement in a selection of Natura 2000 sites in different parts of the European Union shows how different stakeholder groups react when addressed with alternative types of arguments about the value of biodiversity. Particular focus is given to the role of ecosystem services as arguments for nature conservation.
CASE STUDY BRIEF: During the course of a long-term (around 25 years) conflict over protection and management of the Białowieża Forest different actors have strategically used the range of concepts at their disposal, viewing and framing the issues around differing wider standpoints. Arguments related to the intrinsic value of biodiversity were not effective alone, but needed support from social and legal context. Institutionalisation of particular standpoints has legitimised some lines of argument and/or particular actors that have led to the development and implementation of policy.
CASE STUDY BRIEF: This case study analyses the way in which traditional livestock practices have been integrated into the management of natural protected areas in Andalusia, overcoming the apparent conflict between biodiversity conservation and the needs of local people. Some stakeholders highlight that traditional farming is an essential practice which has been conducted for centuries and has the potential to promote local development and conservation. However, others consider that livestock practices should be restricted in protected areas, as biodiversity conservation should be the priority. These opposing views have gradually converged towards promoting a social-ecological approach in protected areas, where both natural and human components are integrated in landscape planning.