EU nature directives: Rights, responsibilities and results - Are we striking the right balance?

Environmental Law and Management

Volumn 20, Issue 5, 2008, Pages 237-245

  Dodd, Andrew ^a  

^a RSPB CENTRE FOR CONSERVATION SCIENCE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIODIVERSITY; CONFERENCE PROCEEDING; CONSERVATION STATUS; EUROPEAN UNION; EXPLOITATION; HABITAT CONSERVATION; POPULATION DECLINE; PROTECTED AREA; RARE SPECIES;

EURASIA; EUROPE;

AVES;

EID: 57249111570     PISSN: 10676058     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (63)

1. Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the Conservation of Wild Birds (Birds Directive).
2. Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora (Habitats Directive).
3. G Williams, D Pullan and others The European Birds Directive - Safeguarding Special Places for People and Wildlife (RSPB Sandy 2005).
4. European Court of Justice Case C-6/04 Commission v United Kingdom 20 October 2005. In paras 115-120, the court confirmed application in the marine environment beyond territorial waters. The judgment applies strictly to the Habitats Directive, but the UK Government applied the logic of the Court's judgment to the Birds Directive. European Commission 'Guidelines for the Establishment of the Natura 2000 Network in the Marine Environment. Application of the Habitats and Birds Directives' (EC Brussels 2007) http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/ natura2000/marine/index_en.htm.
5. European Council 'Presidency Conclusions. Göteborg European Council 15 and 16 June 2001' (European Council 2001).
6. HMSO Securing the Future: UK Government Sustainable Development Strategy (HMSO London 2005).
7. Habitats Directive art 2(2). Favourable conservation status does not appear on the face of the Birds Directive. However, the EC has argued the obligation extends to the Birds Directive and is implicit in art 2 of it - see CEC 'Guidance Document on Hunting under Council Directive 79/ 409/EEC on the Conservation of Wild Birds: the Birds Directive' (European Commission Brussels 2004).
8. European Commission 'Assessment, Monitoring and Reporting under Article 17 of the Habitats Directive: Explanatory Notes and Guidelines. Final Draft. October 2006' (European Commission Brussels 2006).
9. Birds Directive art 13.
10. Courtesy of EBCC/RSPB/BirdLife International/Statistics Netherlands A Biodiversity Indicator for Europe: Trends in Common Birds.
11. Habitats Directive art 3(1).
12. Established under Birds Directive art 4(1) for species listed in Annex I and art 4(2) for regularly occurring migratory species.
13. Established under Habitats Directive art 3 for habitats and species listed in Annexes I and II.
14. Birds Directive art 3 requires Member States to preserve, maintain and re-establish sufficient diversity and area of habitats for all wild birds through measures such as protected areas, habitat creation, restoration and management Art 4 requires the taking of special conservation measures for migratory species and those listed on Annex I: SPAs are specified as one such measure. Habitats Directive art 10 gives Member States the power to encourage the management of features of the landscape of major importance for wild flora and fauna, in particular to improve the coherence of the Natura 2000 network. Such features are those essential to the migration, dispersal and genetic exchange of wild species.
15. Birds Directive arts 5-9;
16. Habitats Directive arts 12-16.
17. Birds Directive arts 7, 8 and Annexes II and IV.
18. European Court of Justice Case C-57/89 Commission v Germany (28 February 1991).
19. Habitats Directive art 6(3) in respect of Natura 2000 sites and art 16 in respect of European Protected Species.
20. Where damage is permitted to a Natura 2000 site, Habitats Directive art 6(4) requires Member States to take all necessary compensatory measures to ensure the overall coherence of the Natura 2000 network is protected.
21. Habitats Directive art 6(4) states that where, in the absence of alternative solutions, damage to a Natura 2000 site is unavoidable, a plan or project can be permitted for imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those of a social or economic nature. Where the Natura 2000 site hosts a priority habitat or species, the only considerations that can be raised are those relating to human health or public safety, to beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment, or following an opinion from the Commission, other imperative reasons of overriding public interest. Article 16 states that a Member State can derogate from the protection regime for European protected species provided there is no satisfactory alternative and the derogation is not detrimental to the maintenance of the populations of the species concerned at a favourable conservation status. The derogations concerned include: (c) in the interests of public health and public safety, or for other imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those of a social or economic nature and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment.
22. ibid Habitats Directive art 6(4).
23. Sustainable Development Commission Turning the Tide: Tidal Power in the UK (SDC 2007) p 143 http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/ publications.php?id=607
24. Defined by the Department for Transport as a port that handled over 1 million tonnes in the year 2000. Major ports account for 97 per cent of reported traffic by tonnage; see DfT Port Master Plan Guidance - Consultation Document (2007).
25. Created by the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Act 1988.
26. For a more detailed account of the history of recent major port proposals in England see R KA Morris and C Gibson 'Port Development and Nature Conservation - Experiences in England between 1994 and 2005' (2007) 50 Ocean & Coastal Management 443-62.
27. Now called Natural England following the bringing together, in 2006, of English Nature, the Countryside Agency and Rural Development Service, under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006.
28. RSPB Port Development and Nature Conservation. Supply & Demand in the GB Ports Industry (RSPB Sandy 1997)
29. and MDS Transmodal Supply and Demand in the GB Ports Industry 2000-2020. A Report for the RSPB and English Nature by MDS Transmodal (RSPB Sandy 2002).
30. PortsWatch Troubled Waters: the PortsWatch Manifesto to Stop Needless Destruction of Important Coastal Sites by Port Developments (RSPB Sandy 2003).
31. Department for Transport Ports Policy Review Interim Report (Department for Transport London 2007).
32. ibid.
33. See for example A M Dodd EU Habitats Directive and Habitat Compensation: Spatial Planning in England and Implementing Habitat Compensation under Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive (unpublished MSc thesis Oxford Brookes University 2007).
34. Planning Bill, General Committee House of Commons, 8 January 2008 col 32.
35. Member of Parliament for Carshalton and Wallington (Liberal Democrat).
36. Chairman, UK Major Ports Group and Chief Executive, Port of London Authority.
37. European Court of Justice Case C-6/04 (n 5).
38. A M Dodd, B E Cleary, and others The Appropriate Assessment of Spatial Plans in England: A Guide to Why, When and How to Do It (RSPB Sandy 2007) http://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/ spatialplansengland_tcm9-168180.pdf.
39. RSPB and others Birds of Prey in the UK: On a Wing and a Prayer (RSPB Sandy 2008).
40. G R Potts 'Global Dispersion of Nesting Hen Harriers Circus cyaneus, Implications for Grouse Moors in the UK' (1998) 140 Ibis 76-88.
41. RSPB and others Red Grouse and Birds of Prey (RSPB Sandy 2008).
42. S M Redpath and S Thirgood Birds of Prey and Red Grouse (The Stationery Office London 1997).
43. P J Hudson Grouse in Space and Time (Game Conservancy Trust Fordingbridge 1992).
44. The Heather Trust Laurent Perrier Award for Wild Game Conservation The Heather Trust Annual Report 1996 55-57.
45. Red Grouse and Birds of Prey (n 40).
46. P F Donald, F J Sanderson and others International Conservation Policy Delivers Benefits for Birds in Europe Science vol 317 issue 5839 pp 810-13.
47. Seven cases affect both SPAs and SACs.
48. The military scheme did not proceed in the end but is included here for completeness as it was granted consent under art 6(4). Based on information provided by Defra and the RSPB.
49. Natural England State of the Natural Environment 2008 (Natural England Sheffield 2008) pp 157-8 http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/sone/ default.htm.
50. Courtesy of RSPB, British Trust for Ornithology, Joint Nature Conservation Committee and Defra.
51. State of the Natural Environment 2008 (n 47).
52. RSPB Lifeline to Recovery: the RSPB's Species Recovery Success in the UK (RSPB Sandy 2005) http://www.rspb.org.uk/images/ lifeline_tcm9-132660.pdf
53. Courtesy of RSPB, British Trust for Ornithology, Joint Nature Conservation Committee and Defra.
54. R Sutherland, O Watts, G Williams 'Climate Change and the Birds and Habitats Directives: Can They Work Together?' (2005) 26 Ecos (3/4) 86-94.
55. The males make a remarkable far-carrying, booming sound (ie song) in spring.
56. Birds Directive art 2;
57. Habitats Directive art 2(2).
58. Article 6(3) requires the appropriate assessment of plans or projects likely to have a significant effect on a Natura 2000 site. Article 6(4) requires compensatory measures for those plans or projects where an adverse effect could not be ruled out and the damage was justified in the absence of alternative solutions and for imperative reasons of overriding public interest.
59. A combination of Birds Directive arts 3 and 4.
60. Birds Directive art 3;
61. Habitats Directive art 10.
62. RSPB discussion paper Financing Natura 2000, Estimating Natura 2000 Funding Needs (RSPB Sandy 2005). This was based on estimates of management requirements for the whole network based on average management costs for five different land-use types.
63. European Commission 'Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament, Sec 2004/770. Financing Natura 2000' (EC Brussels 2004).