p. 171). Additionally, these provisions lack appropriate alignment through guiding
principles. This hinders overall network coherence and resilience improvement. If
the administration does not take the step of translating the general aim of adapting
to climate change into specific, area- and impact-based ecological requirements,
targeted long-term adaptation will not occur. In contrast, the WFD stipulates river
basin management planning combined with a cyclical review of progress, which is
more consistent with the ideal of principled flexibility as it regularly ensures the
sufficiency of chosen measures for the aims set.
Generally, the Habitats Directive already allows many climate change adaptation measures, but remains too unspecific with respect to climate change impacts.
What is hardly possible at present is the targeted reduction of external, non-climatic
stresses as a resilience-improving adaptation measure for a specific site, as the
Habitats Directive provides no legal instruments for influencing already existing
land use practices apart from the deterioration prohibition (cf. Trouwborst 2011,
p. 74), which seems to be rarely applied for this purpose. Regarding the European
regulations of water management, the reduction of external, non-climatic stresses is
much easier due to the ambitious objectives of Art. 4 WFD, the target dates for
achieving good water status and the obligation of the member states to undertake
necessary measures (cf. Art. 11 WFD), although there is still a long way to go
(Albrecht 2013, p. 389).
9.4 Results from a Legal Analysis of National Regulations
in Seven Central European Countries
In order to render the different options of implementing the European law provisions visible and comparable, the legal situation of nature protection and water
law regulations was compared in seven Central European states: Austria, Germany,
Hungary, Italy, Poland, Romania and Slovenia.
9.4.1 Aim and Method of the Legal Comparison
The aim of the legal comparison is to find out how the requirements of the directives
are legally implemented in the member states and whether, when compared with the
stipulations of the European law, there are any legal peculiarities of national
implementations that are relevant for climate change adaptation.
As the European directive law has to be implemented by the member states,
binding with regard to the aims to be achieved, but free in the form and methods
(Art. 288 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union [TFEU]
16 ), differences
16 Consolidated version, OJ C 115, 9.5.2008, p. 47.
144
M. Gies et al.
principles. This hinders overall network coherence and resilience improvement. If
the administration does not take the step of translating the general aim of adapting
to climate change into specific, area- and impact-based ecological requirements,
targeted long-term adaptation will not occur. In contrast, the WFD stipulates river
basin management planning combined with a cyclical review of progress, which is
more consistent with the ideal of principled flexibility as it regularly ensures the
sufficiency of chosen measures for the aims set.
Generally, the Habitats Directive already allows many climate change adaptation measures, but remains too unspecific with respect to climate change impacts.
What is hardly possible at present is the targeted reduction of external, non-climatic
stresses as a resilience-improving adaptation measure for a specific site, as the
Habitats Directive provides no legal instruments for influencing already existing
land use practices apart from the deterioration prohibition (cf. Trouwborst 2011,
p. 74), which seems to be rarely applied for this purpose. Regarding the European
regulations of water management, the reduction of external, non-climatic stresses is
much easier due to the ambitious objectives of Art. 4 WFD, the target dates for
achieving good water status and the obligation of the member states to undertake
necessary measures (cf. Art. 11 WFD), although there is still a long way to go
(Albrecht 2013, p. 389).
9.4 Results from a Legal Analysis of National Regulations
in Seven Central European Countries
In order to render the different options of implementing the European law provisions visible and comparable, the legal situation of nature protection and water
law regulations was compared in seven Central European states: Austria, Germany,
Hungary, Italy, Poland, Romania and Slovenia.
9.4.1 Aim and Method of the Legal Comparison
The aim of the legal comparison is to find out how the requirements of the directives
are legally implemented in the member states and whether, when compared with the
stipulations of the European law, there are any legal peculiarities of national
implementations that are relevant for climate change adaptation.
As the European directive law has to be implemented by the member states,
binding with regard to the aims to be achieved, but free in the form and methods
(Art. 288 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union [TFEU]
16 ), differences
16 Consolidated version, OJ C 115, 9.5.2008, p. 47.
144
M. Gies et al.