The social and political determinants in the formation and implementation of habitat conservation policy : the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981
The aim of the thesis is to ascertain the determinants involved in the introduction of the 'voluntary system' for the protection of habitats in the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 in order to explain its existence and form and also its effectiveness. The identification of the determina...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Published: |
University of Sheffield
1996
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.390469 |
| Summary: | The aim of the thesis is to ascertain the determinants involved in the introduction of the 'voluntary system' for the protection of habitats in the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 in order to explain its existence and form and also its effectiveness. The identification of the determinants involves consideration of a number of hypotheses. A positive proof shows why the voluntary approach was chosen. A negative proof shows why the alternatives of using criminal sanctions or planning control were not chosen. Hypothesis 1 is that the system adopted for species protection had proved inefficacious and thus criminal sanctions were regarded as inappropriate for protecting habitats. This hypothesis is disproved. Hypothesis 2 is that the purpose of the legislation was a determinant. The thesis will show that there is no positive proof of this hypothesis although there is the possibility of a negative proof. Hypothesis 3 is that pressure group activity in the pre-parliamentary stages of its enactment was a determinant. This shows a possible positive proof. Hypothesis 4 is that the influence of pressure groups and Parliament was a determinant during the parliamentary stages of its enactment. This hypothesis is disproved. Hypothesis 5 is that Thatcherite policy was a determinant. This shows a negative proof. Hypothesis 6 is that trends in governmental implementation mechanisms were a determinant in the adoption of the voluntary approach. This shows both positive and negative proofs. The determinants in the formation of the system are then reconsidered in the context of the impact of the system The purpose of the system is then reconsidered to evaluate the efficacy of the system. This evaluation indicates the predicted defects of the system that have materialised. The results are then considered in relation to the implementation of the Habitats Directive. Criteria for reform of the system are then proposed. |
|---|