Land Use Policy 22 (2005) 265–276 Nature conservation and spatial planning in Slovenia: continuity in transition Craig Elliott 1, *, Andrej UdovW 2 1 Centre for Rural Economy, School of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, University of Newcastle, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU, UK 2 Biotechnical Faculty, Department of Agronomy, Institute of Agricultural Economics, University of Ljubljana, Jamnikarjeva 101, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia Received 8 December 2003; received in revised form 10 February 2004; accepted 13 February 2004 Abstract The 1986 National Spatial Plan (NSP) sought to establish a large number of protected areas for nature conservation in Slovenia. Thispaperinvestigateswhyprotectedareaspolicyhasfailedtoformallyinstitutionalisemostoftheseproposedprotectedareas,and why,despitethis,theNSPhascontinuedtoactasthekeyframeworkunderpinningpresentdaydecision-makinginthedevelopment of protected areas. Slovenia was a pioneer of nature protection policy but this was marginalised during the early years of transition with little support other than from officials in the Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning (MESP). The persistence of the NSP shows a degree of legitimacy of the pre-transition legislation in this field, a feature that distinguishes Slovenia from most other CEECs. The case also illustrates the problems of implementing a popular participatory approach to nature protection. r 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Spatial planning; Nature conservation; Inter-ministerial co-operation; Central–local government relations; Slovenia Introduction Slovenia—a special case? Prior to declaring its independence in June 1991, Slovenia was one of the six republics of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia was atypical of the Central and Eastern European Countries (CEECs) in its experience of communism. Following a deep and lasting break with the Soviet Union in 1948, it pursued a foreign policy of non- alignment towards either of the dominant military– politicalblocsandwasabletodevelopitsownparticular brand of communism. The self-management system, originating by law in 1950, gave workers a significant decision-making role in larger local enterprises through participation in workers’ councils. This decentralisation promoted the pursuit of local interests regardless of national interests (PavkoviW, 2000). It was also ex- pressed in a strongly decentralised federal structure; the 1974 constitution gave each republic a wide range of sovereign powers, particularly in cultural affairs. Thus prior to 1991, Slovenia already had its own parliament, government institutions and judicial system (Galligan and Smilov, 1999). At independence, Slovenia was blessed with an advanced starting point compared to other CEECs thanks to early market reform. Its economy was the most prosperous in Central and Eastern Europe, with only 8% of the labour force employed in agriculture (Gow and Carmichael, 2000), two-fifths of the CEECs’ average. Moreover, what makes Slovenia particularly unique among transition countries is a continuity of public administration. The country’s technocratic elite, as agents of national independence, was accorded generous scope of action to deal with Slovenia’s new geo-political environment. Nevertheless, Slovenia faced substantial challenges, in that its small-scale government ministries 1 had to be transformed to take on the obligations of nation ARTICLE IN PRESS *Corresponding author. Tel.: +44-191-222-6623; fax: +44-191-222- 5411. E-mail address: c.j.elliott@ncl.ac.uk (C. Elliott). 1 For example, according to one academic: ‘‘In 1991, the Secretariat for Agriculture had only 20 staff.’’ 0264-8377/$-see front matter r 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2004.02.002