ABSTRACT
Nature conservation is frequently an area of conflict. Official designations of sites impose legal classifications on habitats and species, people, activities and, above all, (diverse) interests. Management of the space sets out priorities, ordains prohibitions and limitations, or promotes certain activities, provided they do not in principle conflict with conservation objectives. Property rights and traditional uses of the land or of natural resources are usually affected or restricted. Management is seen as a constraint imposed by authorities located far away from nature and likely to be motivated by bureaucratic ideas concerning its protection and enhancement. By contrast, things should follow their own course and not be interfered with by complicated sets of principles and regulations. The above-mentioned matters may surely be regarded as stereotypical views of what biodiversity protection usually embraces. However, they also reflect the difficulties modern societies encounter to properly balance the interests of both humans and biodiversity. Designation of sites is only one of the activities that may lead to confrontation between the public authorities and certain sectors of society. Nevertheless, the protection of biodiversity exceeds particular designations encompassing ecosystems and species that (theoretically at least) know no political frontiers. Besides, conservation policies usually require the management of policies that ordain activities carried out over decades or even centuries, for example, hunting, exploitation of watercourses, wood, cork, peat, fish, cattle. Reaching a proper balance, if feasible, between increasingly demanding nature conservation objectives and the regulation of the aforementioned activities may transform public authorities into tightrope walkers.
