processes and adaptive capacity by improving resilience, remains a static goal, not
one that is subject to change through time.
In addition to these “new but fixed” goals, the goals could themselves be
changed when natural developments justify this. The goals set for environmental
and spatial development policies have to be revised regularly, whether or not the
quality and protection goals or the resource management aims are still appropriate,
and whether or not the respective operational directives and measures remain
purposeful (Reese et al. 2010, p. 13 et seq.).
As far as conservation measures are concerned, the focus is on high flexibility in
regulatory law and openness in planning and prevention. Also on the instrumental
level, more dynamic environmental development has to be taken into account
(Reese et al. 2010, p. 14). In spatial and sector planning as well as in the regulation
and permission of land use and exploitation of natural resources, it cannot be
assumed as it used to be that current environmental assessments retain their validity
in the future. This aspect has to be taken into account in state planning procedures
and administrative decisions. The new dynamic environmental conditions mean
that environmental law has to be tested to ascertain whether it can cope with the
necessary adaptations on the levels of goals and measures and the status quo of land
use practice (Reese et al. 2010, p. 14).
9.3.4 Adaptability of European Nature Protection
and Water Law
Against this theoretical background, the Natura 2000 and Water Law can be tested
with regard to its adaptability. The Habitats Directive already reflects several of the
adaptation law principles, without making any of them explicitly considerate of
aspects of climate change adaptation. For example, surveillance is within the scope
of Art. 9–11 HD, entailed by the duties to report and research in Art. 17 and 18 HD.
The situation is similar regarding the WFD. Whilst the monitoring programmes
stipulated in Art. 8 WFD are generally not designed to cater for the need to identify
and monitor climatic aspects, they will inherently contribute to the detection and
understanding of aspects of climate change (EC 2009, p. 50). The Birds Directive
contains no monitoring duties, but it does stipulate research and reporting obligations (Art. 10 and 12 BD). Most significantly, on the level of an individual protected
area, management planning according to Art. 6 (1) HD induces the scope of
monitoring needed in order to identify the ecological requirements of the natural
habitat types that are protected in the area and under the prevalent conditions
(Schumacher and Schumacher 2012, p. 120).
The general deterioration prohibition, Art. 6 (2) HD, and the assessment of
implications of plans and projects stipulated in Art. 6 (3), (4) HD serve the purpose
of at least maintaining resilience, although improvement cannot be directly
achieved with these instruments. With regard to climate change impacts, this
142
M. Gies et al.
one that is subject to change through time.
In addition to these “new but fixed” goals, the goals could themselves be
changed when natural developments justify this. The goals set for environmental
and spatial development policies have to be revised regularly, whether or not the
quality and protection goals or the resource management aims are still appropriate,
and whether or not the respective operational directives and measures remain
purposeful (Reese et al. 2010, p. 13 et seq.).
As far as conservation measures are concerned, the focus is on high flexibility in
regulatory law and openness in planning and prevention. Also on the instrumental
level, more dynamic environmental development has to be taken into account
(Reese et al. 2010, p. 14). In spatial and sector planning as well as in the regulation
and permission of land use and exploitation of natural resources, it cannot be
assumed as it used to be that current environmental assessments retain their validity
in the future. This aspect has to be taken into account in state planning procedures
and administrative decisions. The new dynamic environmental conditions mean
that environmental law has to be tested to ascertain whether it can cope with the
necessary adaptations on the levels of goals and measures and the status quo of land
use practice (Reese et al. 2010, p. 14).
9.3.4 Adaptability of European Nature Protection
and Water Law
Against this theoretical background, the Natura 2000 and Water Law can be tested
with regard to its adaptability. The Habitats Directive already reflects several of the
adaptation law principles, without making any of them explicitly considerate of
aspects of climate change adaptation. For example, surveillance is within the scope
of Art. 9–11 HD, entailed by the duties to report and research in Art. 17 and 18 HD.
The situation is similar regarding the WFD. Whilst the monitoring programmes
stipulated in Art. 8 WFD are generally not designed to cater for the need to identify
and monitor climatic aspects, they will inherently contribute to the detection and
understanding of aspects of climate change (EC 2009, p. 50). The Birds Directive
contains no monitoring duties, but it does stipulate research and reporting obligations (Art. 10 and 12 BD). Most significantly, on the level of an individual protected
area, management planning according to Art. 6 (1) HD induces the scope of
monitoring needed in order to identify the ecological requirements of the natural
habitat types that are protected in the area and under the prevalent conditions
(Schumacher and Schumacher 2012, p. 120).
The general deterioration prohibition, Art. 6 (2) HD, and the assessment of
implications of plans and projects stipulated in Art. 6 (3), (4) HD serve the purpose
of at least maintaining resilience, although improvement cannot be directly
achieved with these instruments. With regard to climate change impacts, this
142
M. Gies et al.