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

Morris, Roger

doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2010.04.005

Cited by 40 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Consistent with previous evidence (Jans et al 2009;Morris 2011), the UK more rarely innovatively interprets and sometimes amends EU policies than the other countries, mainly to maintain its liberal regulatory approach that stresses individual responsibility, based on recommendations of good practice.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 73%

“…It captures how transposition results in tailor-made solutions in a multi-level system (Schmidt 2008). Despite an apparent 'no gold-plating policy' in the EU (Jans et al 2009) and the previously stated rareness of the phenomenon (Morris 2011;Voermans 2009), results illustrate the considerable styles through which EU veterinary drugs directives are customized to fit domestic contexts. Germany, Austria, France and the UK issued market-correcting solutions that exceed the EU directive in their density or stringency (Knill et al 2012) to secure animal health and food safety in the European single market.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…It denotes all instances where at the national level more is being regulated than strictly required, by extending the scope, not taking full advantage of derogations, retaining higher domestic standards or implementing 'too' early (Jans et al 2009). Case study evidence from the Netherlands and the UK suggests that environmental directives are rarely gold-plated (Jans et al 2009;Morris 2011;Voermans 2009). …”

Section: Defining Customizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…According to a widespread 'no gold-plating' policy, implementation should be restricted to what is necessary to comply with the EU's minimum requirements (Morris 2011;Voermans 2009). …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Customizing Europe: transposition as bottom-up implementation

Thomann¹

2015

Journal of European Public Policy

126

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

European Union (EU) implementation research has neglected situations when member states go beyond the minimum requirements prescribed in EU directives (goldplating). The top-down focus on compliance insufficiently accounts for the fact that positive integration actually allows member states to transcend the EU's requirements to facilitate context-sensitive problem-solving. This study adopts a bottom-up implementation perspective. Moving beyond compliance, it introduces the concept of 'customization' to depict how transposition results in tailor-made solutions in a multi-level system. The study analyzes the hitherto unexplored veterinary drug regulations of four member states. Using fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis and formal theory evaluation, this paper assesses how policy and country-level factors interact. Results reveal the countries' different customization styles. The latter simultaneously reflect the interplay of domestic politics with institutions, and the 'fit' of EU regulatory modes with domestic, sectoral interventionist styles. Compliance approaches cannot fully explain these fine-grained patterns of Europeanization.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 73%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Section: Defining Customizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…According to a widespread 'no gold-plating' policy, implementation should be restricted to what is necessary to comply with the EU's minimum requirements (Morris 2011;Voermans 2009). …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Customizing Europe: transposition as bottom-up implementation

Thomann¹

2015

Journal of European Public Policy

126

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…An even smaller number of these assessments eventually lead to the application being refused. For example, in the UK, most major port developments have passed the tests of the Habitats Directive (Morris 2011). For the limited number of project developments that did not proceed in a Natura 2000 context, mostly poor compliance and economic complications were to blame (DEFRA 2012).…”

Section: Toward a Real Or Imaginary Deadlock?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Biodiversity offsetting and restoration under the European Union Habitats Directive: balancing between no net loss and deathbed conservation?

Schoukens¹,

Cliquet²

2016

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. Biodiversity offsets have emerged as one of the most prominent policy approaches to align economic development with nature protection across many jurisdictions, including the European Union. Given the increased level of scrutiny that needs to be applied when authorizing economic developments near protected Natura 2000 sites, the incorporation of onsite biodiversity offsets in project design has grown increasingly popular in some member states, such as the Netherlands and Belgium. Under this approach, the negative effects of developments are outbalanced by restoration programs that are functionally linked to the infrastructure projects. However, although taking into consideration that the positive effects of onsite restoration measures leads to more leeway for harmful project development, the EU Court of Justice has recently dismissed the latter approaches for going against the preventative underpinnings of the EU Habitats Directive. Also, the expected beneficial outcomes of the restoration efforts are uncertain and thus cannot be relied upon in an ecological assessment under Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive. Although biodiversity offsets can still be relied upon whenever application is being made of the derogation clause under Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive, they cannot be used as mitigation under the generic decision-making process for plans and programs liable to adversely affect Natura 2000 sites. We outline the main arguments pro and contra the stance of the EU Court of Justice with regards to the exact delineation between mitigation and compensation. The analysis is also framed in the ongoing debate on the effectiveness of the EU nature directives. Although ostensibly rigid, it is argued that the recent case-law developments are in line with the main principles underpinning biodiversity offsetting. Opening the door for biodiversity offsetting under the Habitats Directive will certainly not reverse the predicament of the EU's biodiversity. A reinforcement of the preventative approach is instrumental to avert a further biodiversity loss within the European Union, even if it will lead to additional permit refusals for unsustainable project developments.

show abstract

Conservation of transnational species: The tensions between legal requirements and best scientific evidence

Pinn

Macleod²,

Tasker³

2021

Aquatic Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

1. This paper describes the tensions between the legal requirements for conservation and the most beneficial biological practice for mobile transnational marine species, using the harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) in European Atlantic waters as a case study. 2. Harbour porpoise are the smallest and one of the most abundant cetaceans occurring throughout the European continental shelf waters, and are affected by human activities occurring in the same waters, especially certain fishing activities. 3. The Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (the Bern Convention) and its implementing legislation the Council Directive on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora 92/43/EEC (i.e. the Habitats Directive) are the main legal drivers for species conservation throughout the European Union. They aim for the long-term achievement of favourable conservation status and make provision for the use of two conservation measures: protected areas and strict protection measures. The strict protection measures aim to ensure that all forms of deliberate killing are prevented, and that where incidental killing and capture occurs, it does not have a negative effect on conservation status.4. The conservation of harbour porpoise is currently dependent upon tackling the key issue of bycatch in fisheries. However, in challenges to Member States on their application of the Habitats Directive, the European Commission has chosen to focus on site designation rather than the implementation of the strict protection measures required to monitor and, where necessary, reduce bycatch. 5. This tension between a legal focus on the designation of protected areas instead of tackling threats such as bycatch has potentially led to negative conservation consequences for harbour porpoise and, in part, may explain why wider marine biodiversity has continued to deteriorate in Europe.

show abstract

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

Cited by 40 publications

References 9 publications

Customizing Europe: transposition as bottom-up implementation

Customizing Europe: transposition as bottom-up implementation

Biodiversity offsetting and restoration under the European Union Habitats Directive: balancing between no net loss and deathbed conservation?

Conservation of transnational species: The tensions between legal requirements and best scientific evidence

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About