Suchergebnisse

Political Science; European Union - Het doel van deze studie is de processen van binnenlandse politisering en sociale inbedding te analyseren rond de Habitats Directive. De serie WRR-webpublicaties omvat studies die in het kader van de werkzaamheden van de WRR tot stand zijn gekomen. De verantwoordelijkheid voor de inhoud en de ingenomen standpunten berust bij de auteurs.

1. The European Habitats Directive is the main legislative work regarding Europe's nature conservation policy. It lists the protected habitats and species in the European Union. The species lists include 122 arthropods. 2. The current lists of arthropods (Annexes II and IV) present, possibly among other, five obvious biases: taxonomic, geographic, range, size and aesthetic biases. Species of selected taxa (Lepidoptera, Coleoptera, Odonata and Orthoptera), from Northern or Central Europe, relatively widespread, of a large body size and attractive are favoured over species of other taxa, from southern and Mediterranean Europe, endemic or relatively small or inconspicuous. Such biases are obstacles to the effective protection of the European fauna. 3. Two main strategies should be followed to avoid these problems and therefore increase the effectiveness of conservation policies: (i) the adoption of objective and transparent criteria for the listing of protected species, and (ii) implement regular updates and amendments to the lists based on such criteria. ; info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion

International audience ; The European Habitat Directive encompasses a conservation policy devoted to conserve habitats rather than single species. This ambition has strong ecological justifications, and inspires other initiatives such as the IUCN red list of ecosystems. Evaluating this policy is therefore pivotal to identify and reproduce best practices. However, the habitat aspect of this policy has so far not been systematically assessed. To make up for this lacuna, we take advantage of decision-aiding methodologies to introduce a new normative framework. According to this framework, a conservation policy is positively evaluated if it contributes to conservation, is science-based, operational, and legitimate. Based on an exploration of the published literature and unpublished reports and databases, we identify knowledge gaps plaguing the European habitat conservation policy. We argue that, due to these knowledge gaps, the contribution of this policy to the conservation of habitats is unproven, it is not science-based, not operational and not legitimate. Our study draws heavily on the French implementation. Analyzing this example, we highlight knowledge gaps that carry lessons for European conservation policies as a whole, but also for conservation initiatives focused on habitats in a broader geographical and political context. We then identify concrete means to strengthen habitats conservation policies.

International audience ; The European Habitat Directive encompasses a conservation policy devoted to conserve habitats rather than single species. This ambition has strong ecological justifications, and inspires other initiatives such as the IUCN red list of ecosystems. Evaluating this policy is therefore pivotal to identify and reproduce best practices. However, the habitat aspect of this policy has so far not been systematically assessed. To make up for this lacuna, we take advantage of decision-aiding methodologies to introduce a new normative framework. According to this framework, a conservation policy is positively evaluated if it contributes to conservation, is science-based, operational, and legitimate. Based on an exploration of the published literature and unpublished reports and databases, we identify knowledge gaps plaguing the European habitat conservation policy. We argue that, due to these knowledge gaps, the contribution of this policy to the conservation of habitats is unproven, it is not science-based, not operational and not legitimate. Our study draws heavily on the French implementation. Analyzing this example, we highlight knowledge gaps that carry lessons for European conservation policies as a whole, but also for conservation initiatives focused on habitats in a broader geographical and political context. We then identify concrete means to strengthen habitats conservation policies.

International audience ; The European Habitat Directive encompasses a conservation policy devoted to conserve habitats rather than single species. This ambition has strong ecological justifications, and inspires other initiatives such as the IUCN red list of ecosystems. Evaluating this policy is therefore pivotal to identify and reproduce best practices. However, the habitat aspect of this policy has so far not been systematically assessed. To make up for this lacuna, we take advantage of decision-aiding methodologies to introduce a new normative framework. According to this framework, a conservation policy is positively evaluated if it contributes to conservation, is science-based, operational, and legitimate. Based on an exploration of the published literature and unpublished reports and databases, we identify knowledge gaps plaguing the European habitat conservation policy. We argue that, due to these knowledge gaps, the contribution of this policy to the conservation of habitats is unproven, it is not science-based, not operational and not legitimate. Our study draws heavily on the French implementation. Analyzing this example, we highlight knowledge gaps that carry lessons for European conservation policies as a whole, but also for conservation initiatives focused on habitats in a broader geographical and political context. We then identify concrete means to strengthen habitats conservation policies.

International audience ; The European Habitat Directive encompasses a conservation policy devoted to conserve habitats rather than single species. This ambition has strong ecological justifications, and inspires other initiatives such as the IUCN red list of ecosystems. Evaluating this policy is therefore pivotal to identify and reproduce best practices. However, the habitat aspect of this policy has so far not been systematically assessed. To make up for this lacuna, we take advantage of decision-aiding methodologies to introduce a new normative framework. According to this framework, a conservation policy is positively evaluated if it contributes to conservation, is science-based, operational, and legitimate. Based on an exploration of the published literature and unpublished reports and databases, we identify knowledge gaps plaguing the European habitat conservation policy. We argue that, due to these knowledge gaps, the contribution of this policy to the conservation of habitats is unproven, it is not science-based, not operational and not legitimate. Our study draws heavily on the French implementation. Analyzing this example, we highlight knowledge gaps that carry lessons for European conservation policies as a whole, but also for conservation initiatives focused on habitats in a broader geographical and political context. We then identify concrete means to strengthen habitats conservation policies.

International audience ; The European Habitat Directive encompasses a conservation policy devoted to conserve habitats rather than single species. This ambition has strong ecological justifications, and inspires other initiatives such as the IUCN red list of ecosystems. Evaluating this policy is therefore pivotal to identify and reproduce best practices. However, the habitat aspect of this policy has so far not been systematically assessed. To make up for this lacuna, we take advantage of decision-aiding methodologies to introduce a new normative framework. According to this framework, a conservation policy is positively evaluated if it contributes to conservation, is science-based, operational, and legitimate. Based on an exploration of the published literature and unpublished reports and databases, we identify knowledge gaps plaguing the European habitat conservation policy. We argue that, due to these knowledge gaps, the contribution of this policy to the conservation of habitats is unproven, it is not science-based, not operational and not legitimate. Our study draws heavily on the French implementation. Analyzing this example, we highlight knowledge gaps that carry lessons for European conservation policies as a whole, but also for conservation initiatives focused on habitats in a broader geographical and political context. We then identify concrete means to strengthen habitats conservation policies.

Spain's successful negotiation of the habitats directive can be explained by the political salience of this particular issue (the priority attached to the strategy whereby the EU had to be convinced of the need to link environmental protection to the provision of special funds) and by the nature of the domestic political system, characterized by its powerful and autonomous executive and by the noncooperative system of interest intermediation. Above all, the triumph of the Spanish strategy is due to the ability of successive heads of government to tightly control leading EU issues by not allowing a highly departmentalized state administration and the regional governments to be too closely involved in community negotiations. The absence of formal mechanisms that would allow contending interest groups to partake in the decision process, thereby reducing time-consuming procedures and administrative costs, must also be taken into account. As a result, Europeanization has scarcely made any progress in Spain.

This article aims at establishing how national courts interpret the concepts of mitigation and compensation measures under Article 6 of the Habitats Directive. Based on a comparative method of legal research, we focus on the implementation of Articles 6(3) and 6(4) of the Habitats Directive, as interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Sweetman, Briels and Orleans cases, and its application in the courts of six Member States, i.e. France, Germany, the UK, the Netherlands, Italy and Bulgaria. Our study highlights national courts tendency to interpret the Habitats Directive and related national law so as to cover matters which have not explicitly been dealt with by the CJEU without asking for preliminary rulings. In each legal order, this lack of preliminary references comported a wrongful interpretation of Article 6(3) of the Directive. This finding shows that the lack of preliminary references affected the legal effectiveness of Article 6 HD.

International audience ; Research on the habitats protected by the European Union's Habitats Directive (HD) has increased rapidly since its adoption in 1992. However, the methods and tools used to assess their conservation status are varied. In this context, we reviewed and summarized the scientific literature related to the coastal Natura 2000 habitats to list and sort parameters used to assess and map their conservation status. We found 225 papers that specifically focused on the assessment of conservation status of coastal habitats. An analysis of the papers was conducted based on the four parameters ("Range", "Area", "structure and functions", "Future prospects") specified in the guidelines. Results highlight knowledge gaps regarding the availability of data and methods that measure the "Range", "Area", "Structure and functions" and "Future prospects". Most of the papers focused on coastal dunes and were located in the Mediterranean biogeographic region. Therefore, the process of assessing the conservation status of coastal habitats remains complicated to implement because methodological approaches are mainly dominated by expert statements. Moreover, all the procedures of the HD are carried out within each member country and the final assessments are often the synthesis of these partial assessments. However, the multiscalar approach and the use of innovative technologies (databases, remote sensing) can be particularly relevant to develop replicable approaches and facilitate monitoring and the implementation of management measures.