conservation goals. In this case, special Climate Change Adapted Management Plans
(CAMPs) could be a suitable instrument (see Chap. 10).
The options granted by the – typically purely declaratory – implementations of
Art. 3 (3) and 10 HD also constitute many and far-reaching opportunities to
integrate climate change adaptation into spatial planning by addressing the specific
needs of expected network connectivity improvements.
The impact assessment for new plans and projects according to Art. 6 (3), (4) HD
can, together with knowledge gained through surveillance (Art. 11 HD), be used to
estimate future impacts with respect to expected climate developments. In terms of
the maintenance of sites, the deterioration prohibition is the key instrument for
keeping up resilience as required by the current conservation status.
9.5.2.2 Limits of Practical and Legal Adaptation
The existing legal framework still has, however, some considerable shortcomings
with respect to climate change adaptation. For example, the designation of new
protection areas needs space, which is typically not available, as most of the
territory of member states is in use. An option could be the creation of “expectation
areas” that become reserved for future nature protection in long-term planning
processes (Hendler et al. 2010, p. 689 et seq.). But as a first step, it would already be
an improvement if climate change adaptation options were explicitly included in
the area selection criteria according to Annex III of the Habitats Directive (Cliquet
et al. 2009, p. 166).
Network coherence improvement according to Art. 3 and 10 HD is a promising
adaptation option; however, it clearly lacks legally binding force (Trouwborst 2011,
p. 74; Cliquet et al. 2009, p. 171).
Another typical shortcoming is the lack of an externally binding effect of
management planning provisions. Hungary and Romania have made strict rules
on this, so that management requirements also directly influence other land use
activities, at least within the protected areas. Other countries have to first introduce
specific statutory prohibitions to reach the same goal, for example in cases when
intensive agriculture must be restricted in order to keep the protected habitats’
resilience to climate change impacts at an appropriate level.
Even more problematic are existing, permitted activities outside the protected
areas that affect the areas’ ecologic quality, like industry emissions, infrastructure
construction and traffic, urban planning and building activities, tourism and agriculture. In this respect, apart from the single permission granted according to the
legal provisions implementing Art. 6 (3), (4) HD at the time of granting the
permission, there is hardly any option that allows the restriction of such activities
in reaction to climate change induced developments in order to strengthen resilience and thus maintain the favourable conservation status of habitats and species.
Only the deterioration prohibition as implemented according to Art. 6 (2) can, in
9 Legal Aspects of Climate Change Adaptation
153
(CAMPs) could be a suitable instrument (see Chap. 10).
The options granted by the – typically purely declaratory – implementations of
Art. 3 (3) and 10 HD also constitute many and far-reaching opportunities to
integrate climate change adaptation into spatial planning by addressing the specific
needs of expected network connectivity improvements.
The impact assessment for new plans and projects according to Art. 6 (3), (4) HD
can, together with knowledge gained through surveillance (Art. 11 HD), be used to
estimate future impacts with respect to expected climate developments. In terms of
the maintenance of sites, the deterioration prohibition is the key instrument for
keeping up resilience as required by the current conservation status.
9.5.2.2 Limits of Practical and Legal Adaptation
The existing legal framework still has, however, some considerable shortcomings
with respect to climate change adaptation. For example, the designation of new
protection areas needs space, which is typically not available, as most of the
territory of member states is in use. An option could be the creation of “expectation
areas” that become reserved for future nature protection in long-term planning
processes (Hendler et al. 2010, p. 689 et seq.). But as a first step, it would already be
an improvement if climate change adaptation options were explicitly included in
the area selection criteria according to Annex III of the Habitats Directive (Cliquet
et al. 2009, p. 166).
Network coherence improvement according to Art. 3 and 10 HD is a promising
adaptation option; however, it clearly lacks legally binding force (Trouwborst 2011,
p. 74; Cliquet et al. 2009, p. 171).
Another typical shortcoming is the lack of an externally binding effect of
management planning provisions. Hungary and Romania have made strict rules
on this, so that management requirements also directly influence other land use
activities, at least within the protected areas. Other countries have to first introduce
specific statutory prohibitions to reach the same goal, for example in cases when
intensive agriculture must be restricted in order to keep the protected habitats’
resilience to climate change impacts at an appropriate level.
Even more problematic are existing, permitted activities outside the protected
areas that affect the areas’ ecologic quality, like industry emissions, infrastructure
construction and traffic, urban planning and building activities, tourism and agriculture. In this respect, apart from the single permission granted according to the
legal provisions implementing Art. 6 (3), (4) HD at the time of granting the
permission, there is hardly any option that allows the restriction of such activities
in reaction to climate change induced developments in order to strengthen resilience and thus maintain the favourable conservation status of habitats and species.
Only the deterioration prohibition as implemented according to Art. 6 (2) can, in
9 Legal Aspects of Climate Change Adaptation
153