Digging beneath the surface: Transposition, implementation and evaluation of European environmental law

Abstract

Transposition and implementation of European environmental law by the Member States remains a significant concern, with both serious breaches in individual cases and general failures across the Member States to comply fully with obligations under directives. There are a wide range of reasons why Member States cannot, or will not comply fully with some obligations. These may result from the nature of the specific policy instrument that is generally preferred, the nature of the specific obligations, but also more general factors, which help to explain differences in compliance with obligations between, and within, Member States. Assessing compliance with obligations is a challenging task and there are some features of environmental policy which raise additional complexities. Whilst compliance with transposition and implementation obligations will remain a vital element in the effectiveness of policy interventions, over recent years there has been an increased focus on evaluating whether the obligations imposed are themselves a sufficient response to the relevant situation, and whether the effects of these have had the anticipated results. Understanding better why Member States fail to comply with some obligations, together with increasing attempts to evaluate the actual impacts of policy interventions, should help to improve the quality of European environmental regulation.

The application of the Habitats Directive in the UK: Compliance or gold plating?

“…Overall, it is clear that the UK is one of the Member States that transposes directives quickly. Etherington (2006) illustrates this tendency to respond quickly through the UK's standing in rankings of transposition performance.…”

“…This lack of progress might be viewed as an uneven playing field, but Laffan and O'Mahony (2008) UK's overall transposition performance is regarded as good (Etherington, 2006), but even so, it has not been immune from criticism or challenge in the European Courts. Furthermore, the European Commission and its advisers regarded the UK approach as inadequate when it was scrutinised during the Kilkee moderation process (Mcleod et al, 2005).…”