the implementation of international nature conservation agreements in europe: the case of the...

European EnvironmentEur. Env. 11, 140–150 (2001)DOI: 10.1002/eet.259

THE IMPLEMENTATION OFINTERNATIONAL NATURECONSERVATION AGREEMENTSIN EUROPE: THE CASE OF THENETHERLANDS

Graham Bennett1,* and Saskia Ligthart2

1 Syzygy, Nijmegen, The Netherlands2 Alterra, Department of Ecology and Society, Wageningen, The Netherlands

Nature conservation policy in Europeancountries is increasingly determined bythe requirements of a wide range ofinternational agreements. The mostimportant are two EU directives (theBirds Directive and the HabitatsDirective) and four conventions (theRamsar Convention, the BernConvention, the Bonn Convention andthe UN Convention on BiologicalDiversity). The main foci of theseinstruments are habitats and species thatare of international importance orrequire international cooperation tosecure their effective conservation.Despite the importance of these habitatsand species, implementation of theinstruments has been uneven. TheNetherlands provides a interestingexample of implementation issues. Thelegislation necessary to enable thegovernment to legally designate areasthat have to be protected under theBirds Directive was only adopted in1998, 17 years after the deadline fixed by

the directive. This legislation has enabledthe government to nominate areas fordesignation under the Birds and HabitatsDirective. However, not all the sites thatfall under the criteria of the Directiveshave been included in the list, and thelegislation does not include the requiredprovision concerning compensation forareas that are protected under theHabitats Directive and then damaged byactivities that are authorized in thepublic interest. In the case of the RamsarConvention, the government is planningto increase the number of designatedsites, but the total number of sites willstill represent inadequately the types ofwetland of international importance thatare found in the Netherlands. Despitethis uneven implementation, theinstruments – particularly the EUDirectives – are having far-reachingeffects on nature conservation in Europe.The most important consequences arethat ecological considerations are thesole and absolute criteria for determiningwhether a site should be protectedunder the EU Directives and that manyareas that until now only enjoyedlimited protection under the spatialplanning system now have to be legally

* Correspondence to: Graham Bennett, Syzygy, PO Box 412,6500 AK Nijmegen, The Netherlands. E-mail: [email protected]

Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment.

INTERNATIONAL NATURE CONSERVATION AGREEMENTS

protected from virtually all forms ofdamage. However, in practice manydevelopment plans take only limitedaccount of the biodiversity conservationrequirements implied by internationalconventions. Copyright © 2001 JohnWiley & Sons, Ltd. and ERPEnvironment.

INTRODUCTION

One of the most important develop-ments in nature conservation policyover the past 30 years has been the

increasing extent to which countries have rec-ognized the need to take coordinated interna-tional action in order to arrest the decline inbiodiversity. This has particularly been thecase in Europe, a continent characterized inrecent decades by a patchwork of relativelysmall countries, environmentally damagingeconomic development and the rise of newinternational institutions. These factors havecombined to create both the need for and themeans to develop new forms of internationalcooperation in the field of nature conserva-tion. Indeed, Europe is unique in the extent towhich the conservation of biodiversity is de-pendent on the application of internationalinstruments. It is therefore of some impor-tance to determine how these instruments areimplemented and their impact in practice.

An opportunity to study the implementa-tion of the most important international in-struments in one country arose with thepreparation of the Nature Balance in 1999 and2000, an independent ‘state of nature’ assess-ment that is drawn up each year for the Dutchgovernment by the National Institute of Pub-lic Health and Environment (Rijksinstituutvoor Volksgezondheid en Milieu and DienstLandbouwkundig Onderzoek – Instituut voorBos- en Natuuronderzoek, 1999). The Nether-lands, like virtually all Western Europeancountries, is bound by formal obligations un-der two main kinds of international natureconservation instrument:

(i) EU directives, most importantly the BirdsDirective and the Habitats Directive, and

(ii) international conventions, those of Eu-ropean importance being the Ramsar Con-vention, the Bern Convention, the BonnConvention and the Convention on Bio-logical Diversity.

THE EU DIRECTIVES

The EU Birds Directive (Official Journal of theEuropean Communities, 1979) and the HabitatsDirective (Official Journal of the European Com-munities, 1992) aim to conserve not only spe-cies but also the habitats on which theydepend. The Birds Directive introduced a gen-eral system of protection for all species ofwild birds found in Europe, including con-trols on hunting, killing and the removal ofeggs and nests and requirements concerningthe provision of sufficient diversity and areaof habitat. The Habitats Directive (which es-sentially transposed the Council of Europe’sBern Convention into Community law) ex-tended this approach to habitat types andspecies other than birds of Community im-portance with the aim of securing for them a‘favourable conservation status’. The areas tobe protected under the two Directives – Spe-cial Protection Areas (SPAs) under the BirdsDirective and Special Areas of Conservation(SACs) under the Habitats Directive – willtogether form Natura 2000, which the Habi-tats Directive describes as a ‘coherent Eu-ropean ecological network’.

In order to meet these objectives, the mem-bers states are required to adopt appropriatelegal measures, including those necessary toestablish protected areas. In addition, Articles6(2), (3) and (4) of the Habitats Directive(which also apply to SPAs) require memberstates:

(i) to take steps to prevent the deteriorationof these areas and the disturbance of therespective species,

(ii) to carry out an ‘appropriate assessment’of plans or projects that may have a sig-nificant effect on an area, and only toapprove such a plan or project if it willnot adversely affect the integrity of therespective area, and

Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Eur. Env. 11, 140–150 (2001)

141

G. BENNETT AND S. LIGTHART

(iii) to take necessary compensatory measureswhere such a plan or project must becarried out for ‘imperative reasons ofoverriding public interest’.

INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS

Several international conventions impose obli-gations on signatory states that have impor-tant implications for nature conservation. TheConvention on Wetlands of International Im-portance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat (the‘Ramsar Convention’, 2 February 1971, rati-fied by all 15 EU member states) aims to stemthe progressive loss of wetlands and to en-courage their wise use. Signatory states areobliged to designate at least one national wet-land and to formulate and implement plans topromote their conservation and wise use.

The Convention on the Conservation of Eu-ropean Wildlife and Natural Habitats (the‘Bern Convention’, 19 September 1979, ratifiedby all EU member states and the EU itself)aims to conserve wild flora and fauna andtheir natural habitats. In particular, the 36signatory states are required to take steps toensure the protection of species listed in theannexes to the Convention, namely ‘strictlyprotected plants’, ‘strictly protected animals’and ‘protected animals’. In addition, under arecommendation adopted by the Conven-tion’s standing committee, signatory statesshould designate Areas of Special Conserva-tion Interest (ASCIs) as a means of achievingthe Convention’s objectives. Areas that aredesignated by EU member states under theBirds and Habitats Directives automaticallybecome ASCIs.

The conservation of animal species that mi-grate across national boundaries is the subjectof the global Convention on the Conservationof Migratory Species of Wild Animals (the‘Bonn Convention’, 23 June 1979, ratified byall EU member states with the exception ofAustria and by the EU). Although the Con-vention lists 76 species of endangered migra-tory animal species and about 150 migratoryanimal species or groups of species that havean ‘unfavourable conservation status’, it is

only a framework agreement: actions to con-serve specific species and their habitats arenegotiated by the respective ‘range states’ inseparate agreements. Seven such agreementshave been adopted by groups of range statesin Europe. These concern the slender-billedcurlew (10 September 1994), the Siberiancrane (13 December 1998), African–Eurasianmigratory water birds (16 June 1995), Eu-ropean bat species (4 December 1991),cetaceans in the Black Sea, the MediterraneanSea and the Contiguous Atlantic area (24November 1996), small cetaceans in the Balticand North Seas (17 March 1992) and seals inthe Wadden Sea (16 October 1990).

The final convention of European impor-tance is the United Nation’s Convention onBiological Diversity (22 May 1992, ratified byall EU member states and the EU), whichaims to conserve biodiversity and to promotethe sustainable use of its components and thefair and equitable sharing of the benefits thatarise out of the utilization of genetic re-sources. Signatory states are obliged to de-velop national strategies, plans or pro-grammes for these purposes and to integratethe conservation and sustainable use of biodi-versity into the relevant sectoral and cross-sectoral plans, programmes and policies.

IMPLEMENTATION: THE CASE OFTHE NETHERLANDS

Strictly speaking, EU directives are bindingon the member states with respect to theresults that must be achieved but leave thechoice of form and method to each individualmember state. In practice, however, most en-vironmental directives severely limit the dis-cretion of the member states in choosing theappropriate implementing instrument. TheBirds and Habitats Directives are no exceptionto this practice. In essence, the Directives re-quire the member states to:

(i) classify the most suitable territories of the181 vulnerable species listed in Annex Iof the Birds Directive and regularly oc-curring migratory species as SPAs fortheir conservation,


142


(ii) take appropriate steps to avoid pollutionor deterioration of the SPAs,

(iii) ensure that the bird species that may behunted and the methods that may beused conform with the provisions of theBirds Directive,

(iv) identify the sites where habitats of Com-munity importance (SCIs) can be foundand, after the European Commission hasdrawn up a definitive list of SCIs, desig-nate these sites as SACs,

(v) establish the conservation measures nec-essary to conserve SACs, and

(vi) ensure that SACs and SPAs are protectedfrom damage and deterioration as pro-vided for by Article 6 of the HabitatsDirective.

In order to comply with these obligations,member states have to introduce control andmanagement arrangements that ensure thatthese measures are taken and, if necessary,enforced. This implies the nomination of acompetent authority and the adoption of ap-propriate laws, regulations and administrativearrangements. The deadlines for compliancewith the main obligations of both Directivesare listed in Table 1.

The original intention of the Dutch govern-ment was to provide for compliance with theBirds Directive – and subsequently the Habi-tats Directive – through limited amendments

to the existing Nature Protection Act, the ap-propriate management of publicly owned na-ture reserves and spatial planning measures.However, this strategy was thwarted on twofronts. First, Parliament rejected the proposedamendments to the Nature Protection Act,which eventually led to several years’ delay inadopting the new legislation. Second, a judge-ment in July 1998 in a case concerning thelegality of drilling for natural gas in the Wad-den Sea found that the spatial planning mea-sures on which the government was relying –primarily the Green Space Structure Plan andthe Wadden Sea Planning Decision – werenot of sufficient legal compulsion to ensurecompliance with the Directives.

This caused serious problems for the gov-ernment’s strategy, since the 29 sites that hadbeen classified under the Birds Directive andthe 27 sites that were listed as potential SCIsunder the Habitats Directive were clearly in-adequate to ensure compliance with the direc-tives – and the Commission had informed theDutch government accordingly. Indeed, theNetherlands had already been condemnedfour times by the European Court of Justicefor failing to implement the Birds Directiveand the European Commission had initiatedinfringement proceedings under the HabitatsDirective against the Netherlands (and eightother member states) for failure to provide theCommission with adequate information onprogress made in implementing the Directive.

In May 1998 the amended Nature Protec-tion Act was adopted by Parliament. The newprovisions enabling the government to desig-nate areas for protection in order to complywith international agreements were givenprompt effect, following which the procedurewas initiated to designate an additional 57sites under the Birds Directive and to submitto the European Commission a list with afurther 62 sites under the Habitats Directive.However, the inclusion of 37 of these siteswas conditional on further consideration bythe Dutch government, an approach whichreceived a critical response from the Commis-sion. In February 1999 the list was consoli-dated and confirmed by the government,although due to changes in delineatingand combining certain sites, the number of

Table 1. The deadlines for meeting the main obligationsunder the EU Birds and Habitats Directives

BirdsObligation HabitatsDirective Directive

Legal compliance by 5 June 19946 April 1981member states

Classification of SPAs –6 April 1981by member states

Submission list of 5 June 1995–potential SCIs bymember states

5 June 1998Establishment list of –SCIs by EuropeanCommission

5 June 2000First implementation 6 April 1984report by memberstates

Designation of SACs – 5 June 2004by member states


143


potential SCIs on the consolidated list totalled76 sites. It is now the task of the Commissionto assess the national lists and to establish anEU-wide list of SCIs. In the first phase of thisprocess, which started in 2000, the EuropeanCommission initiated discussions with themember states concerning the representationof the sites on the national lists with referenceto the respective biogeographical regions. Oneof the conclusions of these discussions wasthat the Dutch list was substantial but stillincomplete (although the lists of five memberstates were regarded as ‘notably insufficient’,and none of the 15 national lists was regardedby the Commission as complete – see Table2).

In March 2000, the Dutch government ‘pro-visionally’ classified the additional SPAs un-der the Birds Directive pending possibleobjections from interested parties, althoughthe number of additional sites was reducedfrom 57 to 49. In the new list, the boundariesof a number of areas had been corrected,seven areas were omitted as a result of shift-ing bird populations and a further area was tobecome the subject of a new designation pro-cedure due to an inappropriate delineation ofthe biotope.

The implementation of the Ramsar Conven-tion carries special significance in the Nether-lands, a country located on the delta of fourmajor rivers and steward of Europe’s mostimportant wetland: the Wadden Sea. In theperiod up to 1995, the Dutch government haddesignated 18 sites under the Convention,equivalent to 32% of the total surface area ofwetlands in the Netherlands. However, it wasgenerally recognized that considerably moreareas fell within the scope of the Convention;the Bird Protection Society, for example,maintained that 67 sites meet the respectivecriteria (BirdLife and Vogelbescherming Ned-erland, 1999). The government accepted theneed to increase the number of Ramsar sitesand in 1999 announced its intention to desig-nate a further 27 sites during the period1999–2000. By March 2000, eight of these ad-ditional sites had been designated.

However, even with these additional desig-nations, the implementation of the Con-vention in the Netherlands will remain unbal-

anced. In the first place, more than three-quarters of the designated sites are located inthe Wadden Sea (which is not designated inits entirety). In the second place, the selectedsites are not representative of either the typesof wetland that are found in the Netherlandsor their international importance. Wetlandtypes that are under-represented include riversystems (of which only 8% in area are desig-nated), coastal wetlands (3% designated) andsaline lakes (none designated). It is also nota-ble that only a small number of the Ramsarsites are protected in provincial and munici-pal structure and development plans.

The remaining three international instru-ments – the Bern Convention, the Bonn Con-vention and the Convention on BiologicalDiversity – have had less effect on Dutchnature conservation policy and practice. Inretrospect, the main impact of the Bern Con-vention was as precursor to the Habitats Di-rective, which is evidenced by the difficultiescurrently being experienced by the Nether-lands in providing for the protection of SACsunder the Directive.

With regard to the Bonn Convention, theobligations stemming from the four agree-ments to which the Netherlands is party –concerning African–Eurasian migratory waterbirds, European bat species, small cetaceansin the Baltic and North Seas and seals in theWadden Sea – have been complied with satis-factorily through the amended Nature Protec-tion Act and the new Flora and Fauna Act.However, the effect of these measures in prac-tice is very limited since they require littleadditional protection in comparison to au-tonomous Dutch nature conservation policy.The potential added value offered by coordi-nated conservation actions of the range stateshas also to a large extent failed to materializedue to less than optimal cooperation betweenthe countries.

Finally, there is the Convention on Biologi-cal Diversity which was, in the opinion of thegovernment, already legally complied with byexisting Dutch law and policy at the time ofratification. However, the government feltthat the aims of the Convention were not inall respects adequately reflected in nationalpolicy. It accordingly formulated the Strategic


144



145

Tab

le2.

Prog

ress

inim

plem

enti

ngth

eE

UB

ird

san

dH

abit

ats

Dir

ecti

ves

Mem

ber

stat

eB

ird

sD

irec

tive

Hab

itat

Dir

ecti

ve

Tot

alar

eaPe

rcen

tage

ofN

umbe

rof

Ass

essm

ent

ofN

umbe

rof

Tot

alar

eaA

sses

smen

tof

Perc

enta

geof

prog

ress

(km

2 )(k

m2 )

terr

itor

ysi

tes

site

spr

ogre

sste

rrit

ory

127

906

610

.8A

ustr

iaSu

bsta

ntia

llis

t73

1193

114

.2In

com

plet

e10

291

33.

0N

otab

lyin

suff

icie

ntL

arge

lyco

mpl

ete

431

314

.1B

elgi

um36

Lar

gely

com

plet

eD

enm

ark

194

1025

923

.8Su

bsta

ntia

llis

t11

19

601

22.3

Inco

mpl

ete

Finl

and

1381

4715

413

.9Su

bsta

ntia

llis

t44

027

500

8.1

1028

3144

05.

7N

otab

lyin

suff

icie

ntN

otab

lyin

suff

icie

nt1.

58

127

115

Fran

ce14

9514

406

4.0

Not

ably

insu

ffic

ient

Ger

man

y57

716

264

4.6

Inco

mpl

ete

234

2652

220

.1Su

bsta

ntia

llis

tIn

com

plet

eG

reec

e3.

84

965

52In

com

plet

eIr

elan

d26

73

091

4.4

Not

ably

insu

ffic

ient

109

223

63.

225

0749

364

16.4

Subs

tant

ial

list

Ital

y26

811

279

3.7

Inco

mpl

ete

3835

213

.6Su

bsta

ntia

llis

tIn

com

plet

eL

uxem

bour

g6.

216

013

Lar

gely

com

plet

eN

ethe

rlan

ds

767

330

17.7

Subs

tant

ial

list

7910

000

24.1 9.2

Inco

mpl

ete

6512

150

13.2

Subs

tant

ial

list

Port

ugal

478

468

867

8807

617

.4Su

bsta

ntia

llis

tIn

com

plet

e34

934

6.9

Spai

n18

1In

com

plet

eSw

eden

1962

5099

612

.4Su

bsta

ntia

llis

t30

423

787

5.3

3.5

Inco

mpl

ete

340

1762

85.

5N

otab

lyin

suff

icie

ntU

nite

dK

ingd

om20

28

524

Sour

ce:

Eur

opea

nC

omm

issi

on(2

000a

).R

epro

duc

edby

perm

issi

onof

the

Eur

opea

nC

omm

issi

on.


Action Plan for Biodiversity (Ministerie vanLandbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij, 1995)with the objective of strengthening policy infive respects, namely

(i) formulating operational biodiversity con-servation objectives,

(ii) broadening the concept of biodiversity,(iii) strengthening Dutch capacity with regard

to the conservation of global biodiversity,particularly available expertise,

(iv) adapting the policy context in such a waythat it provides greater encouragementfor the conservation of biodiversity, and

(v) increasing political and administrativeawareness of biodiversity.

The Plan has had a positive impact onDutch policy. For example, cooperation be-tween government departments with respectto conserving biodiversity has been improvedthrough the Interdepartmental BiodiversityGroup. However, a recent evaluation (Romijnet al., 1998) has shown that interdepartmentalcoordination and the integration of biodiver-sity conservation objectives into other govern-ment policies is still inadequate.

IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES

The Birds and Habitats Directives requiremember states to identify sites that are eligi-ble to be designated as SPAs and SACs solelyon the basis of the ecological criteria set out inthe Directives. In other words, the value ofother forms of land use and the implicationsfor land users of legally protecting an areamay not be taken into account in decidingwhether a site falls within the scope of theDirectives. This requirement has created con-siderable difficulties in the member states,including the Netherlands. To be sure, formany years there has been throughout Europea broad consensus on the concept of sustain-able development and the need to integrateenvironmental objectives into other sectoralpolicies; indeed, both goals have been in-cluded in Dutch environmental policy since1989 (see, for example, Arts and Van derZouwen, 1999) and also as legal obligations in

the EU treaty since 1992 and 1987 respec-tively. But that is not to say that substantialprogress has been made in the member statesin implementing policies that infer a highlevel of environmental protection at the costof economic forms of land use, particularlywhere the task involves the implementation ofEU policies.

A particular difficulty in the Netherlandsconcerns the prominent role that lower au-thorities enjoy in implementing national pro-tected areas policy, a role that cannot bereconciled with the requirements of the Birdsand Habitats Directives. As adopted, the Di-rectives formally recognize the primacy ofecological criteria in determining the location,the size and the delineation of the areas to beprotected, and under EU law it is the nationalgovernment which is responsible for this task.However, protected areas policy in theNetherlands involves a two-stage approach toidentifying sites with the purpose of respect-ing the interests of the many local actorsaffected by any such decision. In the firststage, the national government identifies in-dicative ‘search areas’; in the second, theprovincial authorities delineate the specificsites within these larger areas, taking intoaccount the interests of the local actors. In-evitably, this second stage evolves into anegotiation process between provincialgovernments and the respective land users,but this approach is inappropriate for imple-menting the Birds and Habitats Directives,which do not permit the intrusion of eco-nomic variables into the ecological calculus ofsite identification and delineation.

The Dutch government certainly underesti-mated the risks that this procedure wouldcause in securing formal compliance with theDirectives. It had, after all, in the early 1990sjust embarked on an ambitious new natureconservation strategy involving the creationof a national ecological network in which‘core areas’ – which were assumed to beextensive enough to include all potential SPAsand SCIs – were to be interlinked with corri-dors. For land owners and users in the poten-tial SPAs and SCIs – which were in large partthe same areas as covered by national natureconservation policy – negotiation with the


146


implementing agencies was no longer possi-ble, particularly following the judgements inthe 1996 UK Lappel Bank case (Case C-44/95)and in the 1998 case against the Netherlands(Case C-3/96). These judgements clearly estab-lished that member states are obliged to clas-sify as SPAs all sites that appear to be mostsuitable for conserving the species in questionand that economic arguments may not influ-ence the delineation of an SPA.

This is not to say that all forms of economicland use are prohibited within an SPA or aSAC. Many sites that are designated as SPAsare already used for economic purposes, suchas grazing or forestry. Indeed, Article 2 of theBirds Directive explicitly provides that theoverall objective is to be achieved ‘taking ac-count of economic and recreational require-ments’, while Article 6(3) of the HabitatsDirective lays down a procedure for assessingproposals for activities in SPAs and SACs.The crucial distinction, which was not clearlyunderstood by the Dutch and many othergovernments, is that between, on the onehand, the peremptory nature of the obligationon member states to identify and delineatesites on the basis of explicit criteria and, onthe other hand, the discretionary nature of theprovisions that permit existing or new formsof land use in the designated areas to theextent that they do not significantly jeopardisethe conservation status of the sites.

Not surprisingly, the decision to consultwith land users in the Netherlands triggered alarge number of objections. For example, inthe process of identifying SPAs under theBirds Directive, the Ministry of Agriculture,Nature Management and Fisheries receivedover 5000 reactions from interested parties.The main objections raised concerned thehaste with which the list of sites was drawnup, the strict application of ecological criteriain determining whether a site should be se-lected and uncertainty over the implicationsfor land users inferred by designation. Forexample, when is the disturbance of a SAC‘significant’, when is a plan or project likely tohave a ‘significant effect’ on a SAC and whatare ‘reasons of overriding public interest’?Dutch legislation does not include any provi-sions to determine how such questions should

be answered. In fact, most of the legislationthat prescribes the grounds on which permitsmay be granted by provincial and municipalauthorities for various forms of land use andindustrial installations does not recognize na-ture conservation as a legitimate reason forrefusing a permit. Moreover, not all activitiesthat have the potential to damage SPAs andSACs require prior permission. The lack ofclear legislative provisions in this regardraises the possibility that, in the event oflitigation concerning the legitimacy of under-taking certain activities that would affect aSAC, the court will base its judgement on aninterpretation of the text of the Directive itself,as occurred in the 1998 Wadden Sea casementioned above.

This uncertainty raises the prospect that theway in which SACs are protected and man-aged could become a matter of dispute, notonly in the Netherlands but in all the memberstates. It is for this reason that the EuropeanCommission has published a managementguide for Natura 2000 sites with the aim ofclarifying many of these issues (EuropeanCommission, 2000b). The Dutch governmentis also preparing a comparable guidebook foruse by competent authorities and site man-agers in the Netherlands.

In contrast to the reactions of many landusers, nature conservation organizations wereof the opinion that too few sites had beenselected. A study carried out in 1998 by theDutch Bird Protection Society (Vogelbescher-ming Nederland, 1998, letter to the EuropeanCommission) showed, however, that impor-tant parts of several valuable areas in theWesterschelde, the Veluwe and the flood-plains of the rivers Rhine, Waal and Yssel hadnot been included in the list of sites drawn upto implement the Directives by the Dutchgovernment. These omissions were subse-quently acknowledged by the Secretary ofState for Nature Management during a parlia-mentary debate on the implementation of theBirds and Habitats Directives, but explainedon the grounds that the areas in questionwere subject to intensive use by agriculture,recreational activities, shipping and militarytraining exercises. The Secretary of State didnot, however, give any arguments to justify


147


this decision in relation to the criteria laiddown by the directives. At the request ofParliament, she agreed to review the matterand subsequently submitted a revised list ofsites for designation under the Birds Direc-tive. Importantly, those areas that had previ-ously been omitted due to intensive land usewere now included, to the satisfaction of theBird Protection Society. However, despite thepositive reaction of the society, the Nether-lands is still one of 13 member states – theexceptions are Belgium and Denmark – that21 years after the adoption of the Birds Direc-tive still have to submit a complete nationallist of sites to the European Commission.

For an EU member state, an EU directive isof significantly greater importance than aninternational convention since the obligationsimposed on the member state can be legallyenforced and financial sanctions can be im-posed. However, legal action as a means ofenforcing compliance with EU directives car-ries certain disadvantages, particularly whererecourse is to the European Court of Justice.Most judgements are made only after a pro-cess lasting several years, and even thenmany are not promptly effected by the respec-tive member state. The Netherlands, for ex-ample, has been condemned four times by theCourt of Justice for failing to comply with theprovisions of the Birds Directive, and a fur-ther infringement procedure is under way forfailure to comply with a previous judgementconcerning the designation of Special Protec-tion Areas. But if the efficacy of the mecha-nisms for enforcing compliance with EUdirectives is somewhat limited, the means forenforcing international conventions are boundby even greater constraints: recourse to thetwo forms of redress – international arbitra-tion or the International Court of Justice –requires in both cases the consent of theprospective defendant. Not surprisingly, nodispute involving the implementation of anature conservation convention has ever beenresolved through either of these twomechanisms.

A final implementation issue of broad inter-est concerns the role of spatial planning as ameans of protecting sites of special value. Theplanning mechanism has the potential to be

particularly useful in implementing interna-tional conventions since, in contrast to EUdirectives, these do not necessarily require asignatory state to adopt binding legislation asa means of complying with the respectiveobligations. However, the experience of theNetherlands in this respect is not encourag-ing. In a recent highly publicized case con-cerning the development of a new industrialestate in the province of Limburg, environ-mental groups pointed out that the develop-ment threatened one of the last remaininghabitats in the Netherlands of the Europeanhamster (Cricetus cricetus), a species protectedunder both the Habitats Directive and theBern Convention. The local planning author-ity nevertheless approved the proposals. Ap-peals by the environmental organizations,which led to the highest Dutch court an-nulling the local planning permission, re-sulted in considerable delay in construction.

The shortcomings of lower authorities inthis respect were confirmed in a recent evalu-ation of the implementation of the RamsarConvention by the Dutch Court of Auditors(Algemene Rekenkamer, 1999): it was foundthat the procedure through which provincesand municipalities were required to ensurethat spatial plans took account of interna-tional nature conservation obligations func-tioned very poorly. The Court of Auditorscould not establish to what extent the Min-istry of Agriculture, Nature Management andFisheries fulfilled its obligation to assessprovincial structure plans with regard to na-tional policy on the conservation of Ramsarwetlands. Some of the regional inspectoratesof the Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planningand Environmental Protection did give atten-tion to wetlands in their assessments of mu-nicipal development plans, although it isuncertain to what extent Ramsar wetlands areprotected under these plans.

The low level of attention accorded to therole of spatial planning is of special concerngiven that the issue had already been high-lighted by nature conservation organizationsin an earlier report on wetlands in the Nether-lands (WWF, 1998). There are, however, signsthat the persistent problems concern-ing implementation of these international


148


agreements, and particularly in regard to theBirds and Habitats Directives, are after manyyears encouraging public authorities to paymore serious attention to the issue. For exam-ple, the municipalities in the Wadden Searegion have decided to incorporate the assess-ment procedure for new proposals that mightaffect SACs, as laid down in Article 6(3) of theHabitats Directive, in their local developmentplanning systems. These municipalities are, ofcourse, well aware of the European impor-tance of the Wadden Sea and of the need tocomply with international requirements con-cerning its conservation. However, while thisstep offers for the first time in the Nether-lands the possibility that lower authoritieswill explicitly apply the criteria laid down inthe Habitats Directive to their own land-useplanning decisions, it is also important torecognize that development planning is notby itself an adequate instrument to deal withall potential threats to designated sites. Theintensification of certain forms of land use,such as changing agricultural practices andthe growth in tourism, and the need to ac-tively manage many sites in order to maintaintheir natural quality, require a broader rangeof instruments if the objectives of interna-tional nature conservation agreements are tobe fully achieved (Ligthart and Neven, 2000;WaddenAdviesRaad, 2000).

CONCLUSIONS

International agreements are taking on in-creasing importance in efforts to conserve bio-diversity in European countries. EU measuressuch as the Birds and Habitats Directives im-pose binding obligations on member states toprotect internationally important sites andspecies populations, and various internationalconventions require the formulation of strate-gic biodiversity conservation policies and theadoption of measures to protect specific typesof species and habitat. Some of the effects ofthese instruments are profound. They are, forexample, serving to extend and upgrade exist-ing national nature conservation regimes andto impose international conservation priorities

that limit and are superior to national policiesconcerning the trade-off between conservationand other land uses: indeed the EU Directivesare responsible for introducing a radical inno-vation in biodiversity conservation policy inEurope, namely that sites which meet certainecological criteria shall be mandatorily desig-nated, regardless of the value attributed tocompeting land uses.

However, despite the significance of inter-national instruments for conserving biodiver-sity in Europe, the implementation of both EUdirectives and international conventions suf-fers – if the example of the Netherlands is atall representative – from serious problems:implementing legislation is both late and in-adequate, the criteria for identifying sites ofinternational importance are applied inconsis-tently both within and between countries andlittle effort is made to ensure that the sites areprotected in regional and local land-use plans.The way in which the provisions are beingimplemented in practice determines to an im-portant extent their value for biodiversity con-servation. There is a demonstrable need toensure that the conservation criteria that un-derlie the objectives of each agreement areconsistently and rigorously applied through-out the implementation process and that gov-ernments are pro-active in ensuring that theimplementing measures taken by the manage-ment authorities in each country are effectivein meeting the respective biodiversity conser-vation objectives.

These shortcomings are the focus of intensi-fying efforts by the European Commission,national agencies and environmental NGOs toimprove the implementation of the EU Direc-tives. However, the efforts will only be suc-cessful if mechanisms are developed that areof sufficient substance and compulsion to en-sure that the competent authorities at na-tional, regional and local level which areresponsible for spatial planning and the envi-ronmental impact of agriculture, forestry,hunting, energy, industry, transport andrecreation are both equipped with sufficientpowers and compelled to exercise those pow-ers in a consistent and efficacious manner.


149


REFERENCES

Algemene Rekenkamer. 1999. Naleving in InternationaleAfspraken over Wetlands. SDU: The Hague.

Arts B, Van der Zouwen M. 1999. Policy arrangementsin nature conservation: the case of the Netherlands inthe European context. Paper presented at the confer-ence Environmental Policy in Europe: Visions for the NewMillenium, London, 1999.

BirdLife and Vogelbescherming Nederland. 1999. Na-tional Inventory of Ramsar Sites in the Netherlands: Wet-lands of International Importance Under the WetlandsConvention, National Report of the Kingdom of theNetherlands. Vogelbescherming Nederland: Zeist.

European Commission. 2000a. Natura Barometer. Natura2000 Newsletter September: 6–7.

European Commission. 2000b. Managing Natura 2000Sites: the Provisions of Article 6 of the Habitats Directive92/43/CEE. Office for Official Publications of the Eu-ropean Communities: Luxembourg.

Ligthart SSH, Neven MGG. 2000. Implementatie van deHabitat- en Vogelrichtlijn op de Waddeneilanden: Naar eenProcesmethodiek op Maat, Report 030. Alterra: Wagenin-gen.

Ministerie van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij.1995. Strategisch Plan van Aanpak Biologische Diver-siteit. Ministerie van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer enVisserij: The Hague.

Official Journal of the European Communities. 1979. CouncilDirective 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the Conserva-tion of Wild Birds; OJ L103 25.4.79. As amended byDirectives 81/854/EEC; OJ L319, 7.11.81. 85/411; OJL233, 30.8.85. 86/112/EEC; OJ L100, 16.4.86. 91/244/EEC; OJ L115, 8.5.91. 94/24/EC; OJ L164, 30.6.94. 97/49/EC; OJ L223, 13.8.97.

Official Journal of the European Communities. 1992. CouncilDirective 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the Con-servation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna andFlora; OJ L206, 22.7.92. As amended by Directives97/226/EC; OJ L107, 24.4.97. 97/62/EC; OJ L303,8.11.97.

Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu and Di-enst Landbouwkundig Onderzoek–Instituut voorBos- en Natuuronderzoek. 1999. Natuurbalans 99.Samsom HD (ed.). Tjeenk Willink: Alphen aan denRijn.

Romijn B, Kessler B, Kessler JJ, Boland M, Stalenhoef M,Kriesch M, Terwan P. 1998. Strategisch Plan van AanpakBiodiversiteit: Evaluatie. AIDEnvironment: Amsterdam.

WaddenAdviesRaad. 2000. Advies over de Implementatievan het Afwegingskader van de Habitatrichtlijn op deWaddeneilanden. WaddenAdviesRaad: Leeuwarden.

WWF, Vogelbescherming Nederland, BirdLife Interna-tional. 1998. Nederlandse Wetlands 1997. Vogelbescher-ming Nederland: Zeist.


150

the implementation of international nature conservation agreements in europe: the case of the...

Documents