opportunity to deviate from this principle if the required protective status can be
equally well achieved using other legal instruments.
In Hungary, a parallel system combining both national and European protected
areas has been established. Although in principle all SPAs and SACs are to be
declared as nationally protected areas, regulated in the Nature Conservation Act
1996/53
21 (Ba ´rsony and Dieckmann 2007, p. 55), there are areas for which this has
not (yet) happened. They are protected according to the regulations of a separate
Government Decree on Areas of Community Interest 275/2004
22 (Ba ´rsony and
Dieckmann 2007, p. 54 et seq.). Interestingly, the latter regulations are considered
to be more precise, specific, stricter and give the impression of representing less
unsuitable implementation, although they are meant to be more or less provisional
(Ba ´rsony and Dieckmann 2007, p. 62 et seq.). Also in Italy (Art. 3 (2) DPR
357/1997
23 ) and Poland (Art. 6 (1) (5), 25 Law on Nature Conservation
24 ), there
are specifically designated SACs and SPAs alongside those that are overridden by,
or integrated in, the protection regime of an existing national protection area (Italy:
Art. 4 (3) DPR 357/1997, Poland: Art. 25 (2) Law on Nature Conservation).
Implementation of climate change adaptation measures related to the whole
protection area seems to be more flexible within systems that fully integrate Natura
2000 sites into the existing legal regulations for nature protection areas, as the
relation of nature protection to other land uses and the general rules of administration are already well established. These relations have to be specifically created for
separate models, requiring, e.g., rules on how climate change adaptation needs for
Natura 2000 sites are to be considered in spatial planning; similarly the administrative body responsible for setting up management plans and enforcing the deterioration prohibition has to be determined.
Improving network connectivity is a vital option for allowing nature to adapt to
climate change as it offers the endangered species the possibility to migrate. The
main problem of connectivity improvement as formulated in Art. 3, 10 HD,
however, is its weak legal design: “Where they consider it necessary, Member
States shall endeavour to improve the ecological coherence of Natura 2000”/
“Member States shall endeavour, where they consider it necessary, in their landuse planning and development policies [. . .] to improv[e] the ecological coherence
of the Natura 2000 network”. These provisions are not only too unspecific to
demand properly binding implementation (cf. Cliquet et al. 2009, p. 171;
Trouwborst 2011, p. 74), but cannot even be enforced against member states that
do not make the required effort (Mo ¨ckel and Ko ¨ck 2009, p. 323). As connectivity is
21 1996. e ´vi LIII. to ¨rve ´ny a terme ´szet ve ´delme ´ro ˝l.
22 275/2004. (X. 8.) Korm. rendeletaz euro ´pai ko ¨zo ¨sse ´gi jelento ˝se ´gu ˝ terme ´szetve ´delmi
rendeltete ´su ˝ teru ¨letekro ˝l.
23 Decreto del Presidente della Repubblica (D.P.R.) 357/1997, Regolamento recante attuazione
della direttiva 92/43/CEE relativa alla conservazione degli habitat natuali e seminaturali, nonche’
della flora e della fauna selvatiche. (Gaz. Uffic. n. 248 del 23.10.1997 – Suppl. Ordin. n. 219).
24 Ustawa o Ochronie Przyrody z 16.04.2004 r. Dz. U. z 2009 r. Nr 151, poz. 1220.
9 Legal Aspects of Climate Change Adaptation
147
equally well achieved using other legal instruments.
In Hungary, a parallel system combining both national and European protected
areas has been established. Although in principle all SPAs and SACs are to be
declared as nationally protected areas, regulated in the Nature Conservation Act
1996/53
21 (Ba ´rsony and Dieckmann 2007, p. 55), there are areas for which this has
not (yet) happened. They are protected according to the regulations of a separate
Government Decree on Areas of Community Interest 275/2004
22 (Ba ´rsony and
Dieckmann 2007, p. 54 et seq.). Interestingly, the latter regulations are considered
to be more precise, specific, stricter and give the impression of representing less
unsuitable implementation, although they are meant to be more or less provisional
(Ba ´rsony and Dieckmann 2007, p. 62 et seq.). Also in Italy (Art. 3 (2) DPR
357/1997
23 ) and Poland (Art. 6 (1) (5), 25 Law on Nature Conservation
24 ), there
are specifically designated SACs and SPAs alongside those that are overridden by,
or integrated in, the protection regime of an existing national protection area (Italy:
Art. 4 (3) DPR 357/1997, Poland: Art. 25 (2) Law on Nature Conservation).
Implementation of climate change adaptation measures related to the whole
protection area seems to be more flexible within systems that fully integrate Natura
2000 sites into the existing legal regulations for nature protection areas, as the
relation of nature protection to other land uses and the general rules of administration are already well established. These relations have to be specifically created for
separate models, requiring, e.g., rules on how climate change adaptation needs for
Natura 2000 sites are to be considered in spatial planning; similarly the administrative body responsible for setting up management plans and enforcing the deterioration prohibition has to be determined.
Improving network connectivity is a vital option for allowing nature to adapt to
climate change as it offers the endangered species the possibility to migrate. The
main problem of connectivity improvement as formulated in Art. 3, 10 HD,
however, is its weak legal design: “Where they consider it necessary, Member
States shall endeavour to improve the ecological coherence of Natura 2000”/
“Member States shall endeavour, where they consider it necessary, in their landuse planning and development policies [. . .] to improv[e] the ecological coherence
of the Natura 2000 network”. These provisions are not only too unspecific to
demand properly binding implementation (cf. Cliquet et al. 2009, p. 171;
Trouwborst 2011, p. 74), but cannot even be enforced against member states that
do not make the required effort (Mo ¨ckel and Ko ¨ck 2009, p. 323). As connectivity is
21 1996. e ´vi LIII. to ¨rve ´ny a terme ´szet ve ´delme ´ro ˝l.
22 275/2004. (X. 8.) Korm. rendeletaz euro ´pai ko ¨zo ¨sse ´gi jelento ˝se ´gu ˝ terme ´szetve ´delmi
rendeltete ´su ˝ teru ¨letekro ˝l.
23 Decreto del Presidente della Repubblica (D.P.R.) 357/1997, Regolamento recante attuazione
della direttiva 92/43/CEE relativa alla conservazione degli habitat natuali e seminaturali, nonche’
della flora e della fauna selvatiche. (Gaz. Uffic. n. 248 del 23.10.1997 – Suppl. Ordin. n. 219).
24 Ustawa o Ochronie Przyrody z 16.04.2004 r. Dz. U. z 2009 r. Nr 151, poz. 1220.
9 Legal Aspects of Climate Change Adaptation
147