also a transboundary issue, even more irritating is the fact that there is hardly any
commitment on the EU level to improve the connectivity of areas and protection
regimes between the member states. This is required to enhance the coherence of
the Natura 2000 network (Trouwborst 2011, p. 75; Cliquet et al. 2009, p. 171).
9.4.2.2 Protection Regime (Legal, Administrative and Contractual
Measures, Area Management Planning, Impact Assessment)
The protection regime has been implemented in most of the countries more strictly
than required by the directive. In the state of Burgenland in Austria, Natura 2000 sites
must be protected at least by means of a decree according to Sec. 22b (1) of the
Burgenland Nature Conservation Act, and area management planning is compulsory
for every site according to Sec. 22c (3) of the Burgenland Nature Conservation Act,
whereas the Habitats Directive states in Art. 6 (1) that such plans shall be established
“if need be”. Germany has copied the directive’s provision in Sec. 32 (5) of the
Federal Nature Conservation Act, Italy in Sec. 4 (2) of the Decree of the President of
the Republic 357/1997 on the Implementation of the Directive EC/92/43.
Most of the other Central European countries have installed a compulsory management planning procedure. In Hungary management plans are made specifically for
every site, they stay in force for a maximum of 10 years, and they are legally binding
to everyone exercising any activity within the protected area, according to Sec. 26 (3)
of the Nature Conservation Act 1996/53. Very similar provisions on area management are contained in Romania’s Art. 21 of the Law no. 49/2011 on protected areas
for the conservation of wild flora and fauna. Slovenia has a system involving a
centralised, regularly revised “operational programme on area management” that is
specified for individual areas as needed (Art. 12, 13 of the Decree no. 49/2004 on
special protection areas (Natura 2000 areas)), and in Poland there is a very similar
“plan of protection tasks” set up for 10 years which becomes concretised on the local
level (Art. 28 Law on Nature Conservation).
The procedure for assessing implications for the site in view of the site’s
conservation objectives according to Art. 6 (3), (4) HD, which is also applicable
for SPAs, Art. 7 HD, is laid out in great detail in the directive and allows hardly any
room for substantial deviations in its implementation. The procedure can either be
integrated into existing permission procedures, or a specific Natura 2000 permission procedure can be created. Some countries include a definition of the term plan
or project, whereas others do not specify these terms further than the Habitats
Directive (Epiney and Gammenthaler 2009, p. 159 et seq.). In Germany, the impact
assessment was not sufficiently implemented until the European Court of Justice
intervened (Epiney and Gammenthaler 2009, p. 186 et seq.). Impact assessment can
and should include climate change considerations related to future impacts of plans
and projects (Cliquet et al. 2009, p. 170), however this is expressed by neither the
Habitats Directive nor the implementing laws.
148
M. Gies et al.
commitment on the EU level to improve the connectivity of areas and protection
regimes between the member states. This is required to enhance the coherence of
the Natura 2000 network (Trouwborst 2011, p. 75; Cliquet et al. 2009, p. 171).
9.4.2.2 Protection Regime (Legal, Administrative and Contractual
Measures, Area Management Planning, Impact Assessment)
The protection regime has been implemented in most of the countries more strictly
than required by the directive. In the state of Burgenland in Austria, Natura 2000 sites
must be protected at least by means of a decree according to Sec. 22b (1) of the
Burgenland Nature Conservation Act, and area management planning is compulsory
for every site according to Sec. 22c (3) of the Burgenland Nature Conservation Act,
whereas the Habitats Directive states in Art. 6 (1) that such plans shall be established
“if need be”. Germany has copied the directive’s provision in Sec. 32 (5) of the
Federal Nature Conservation Act, Italy in Sec. 4 (2) of the Decree of the President of
the Republic 357/1997 on the Implementation of the Directive EC/92/43.
Most of the other Central European countries have installed a compulsory management planning procedure. In Hungary management plans are made specifically for
every site, they stay in force for a maximum of 10 years, and they are legally binding
to everyone exercising any activity within the protected area, according to Sec. 26 (3)
of the Nature Conservation Act 1996/53. Very similar provisions on area management are contained in Romania’s Art. 21 of the Law no. 49/2011 on protected areas
for the conservation of wild flora and fauna. Slovenia has a system involving a
centralised, regularly revised “operational programme on area management” that is
specified for individual areas as needed (Art. 12, 13 of the Decree no. 49/2004 on
special protection areas (Natura 2000 areas)), and in Poland there is a very similar
“plan of protection tasks” set up for 10 years which becomes concretised on the local
level (Art. 28 Law on Nature Conservation).
The procedure for assessing implications for the site in view of the site’s
conservation objectives according to Art. 6 (3), (4) HD, which is also applicable
for SPAs, Art. 7 HD, is laid out in great detail in the directive and allows hardly any
room for substantial deviations in its implementation. The procedure can either be
integrated into existing permission procedures, or a specific Natura 2000 permission procedure can be created. Some countries include a definition of the term plan
or project, whereas others do not specify these terms further than the Habitats
Directive (Epiney and Gammenthaler 2009, p. 159 et seq.). In Germany, the impact
assessment was not sufficiently implemented until the European Court of Justice
intervened (Epiney and Gammenthaler 2009, p. 186 et seq.). Impact assessment can
and should include climate change considerations related to future impacts of plans
and projects (Cliquet et al. 2009, p. 170), however this is expressed by neither the
Habitats Directive nor the implementing laws.
148
M. Gies et al.