Misfits and compliance patterns in the transposition and implementation of the Habitats Directive—four cases

Pia Frederiksen; Theo van der Sluis; Angheluta Vadineanu; Theano S. Terkenli; Veronika Gaube; Anne Gravsholt Busck; Jens Peter Vesterager; Nicoleta Geamana; Despoina E. Schistou; Bas Pedroli

doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.12.010

Misfits and compliance patterns in the transposition and implementation of the Habitats Directive—four cases

Pia Frederiksen^*, Theo van der Sluis, Angheluta Vadineanu, Theano S. Terkenli, Veronika Gaube, Anne Gravsholt Busck, Jens Peter Vesterager, Nicoleta Geamana, Despoina E. Schistou, Bas Pedroli

^*Corresponding author af dette arbejde

LUKKET: Geografi

9 Citationer (Scopus)

Abstract

This paper investigates the transposition and implementation of the Habitats Directive in four European member states, namely Denmark, the Netherlands, Greece, and Romania, and the role that institutional misfits have played in more or less successful implementation processes. Departing in the ‘Worlds of Compliance’ literature, it also explores if this typology can be useful for understanding the ways member states address institutional adaptation pressures in the implementation steps following the transposition phase. The requirements in the Habitats Directive expanded most member states’ nature conservation frameworks, especially in the obligation to introduce pro-active conservation, and it also laid down a number of steps to be taken for creating the European Natura 2000 network. It was found that the transposition did mostly follow general compliance types, but that these types also helped understand the extent and adequacy of adaptations and changes to the institutional framework in the implementation processes following the directive's adoption. Implementation challenges were different for different countries. They showed a need to align institutional frameworks for a) Natura 2000 in areas with several existing types of landscape protections and ensuing spatial and institutional overlaps; b) clarifying the roles and responsibilities of various authorities involved in implementation; c) ensuring coordination with the other sectorial policy areas that interact with the Habitats Directive (such as the Nitrate Directive and the Water Framework Directive). It turned out that there could be a need for more flexible and less-top-down European legislation, providing a larger room-for-manoeuvre for integration with domestic approaches.

Originalsprog	Engelsk
Tidsskrift	Land Use Policy
Vol/bind	62
Sider (fra-til)	337-350
Antal sider	14
ISSN	0264-8377
DOI	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.12.010
Status	Udgivet - 2017

Adgang til dokumentet

10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.12.010

Citationsformater

@article{96a7533cbfde4c6d9500b30ca6ef3ed6,

title = "Misfits and compliance patterns in the transposition and implementation of the Habitats Directive—four cases",

abstract = "This paper investigates the transposition and implementation of the Habitats Directive in four European member states, namely Denmark, the Netherlands, Greece, and Romania, and the role that institutional misfits have played in more or less successful implementation processes. Departing in the {\textquoteleft}Worlds of Compliance{\textquoteright} literature, it also explores if this typology can be useful for understanding the ways member states address institutional adaptation pressures in the implementation steps following the transposition phase. The requirements in the Habitats Directive expanded most member states{\textquoteright} nature conservation frameworks, especially in the obligation to introduce pro-active conservation, and it also laid down a number of steps to be taken for creating the European Natura 2000 network. It was found that the transposition did mostly follow general compliance types, but that these types also helped understand the extent and adequacy of adaptations and changes to the institutional framework in the implementation processes following the directive's adoption. Implementation challenges were different for different countries. They showed a need to align institutional frameworks for a) Natura 2000 in areas with several existing types of landscape protections and ensuing spatial and institutional overlaps; b) clarifying the roles and responsibilities of various authorities involved in implementation; c) ensuring coordination with the other sectorial policy areas that interact with the Habitats Directive (such as the Nitrate Directive and the Water Framework Directive). It turned out that there could be a need for more flexible and less-top-down European legislation, providing a larger room-for-manoeuvre for integration with domestic approaches.",

keywords = "Environmental policy, Goodness of fit, Habitats Directive implementation, Institutions, Natura 2000 management, Worlds of Compliance",

author = "Pia Frederiksen and {van der Sluis}, Theo and Angheluta Vadineanu and Terkenli, {Theano S.} and Veronika Gaube and Busck, {Anne Gravsholt} and Vesterager, {Jens Peter} and Nicoleta Geamana and Schistou, {Despoina E.} and Bas Pedroli",

year = "2017",

doi = "10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.12.010",

language = "English",

volume = "62",

pages = "337--350",

journal = "Land Use Policy",

issn = "0264-8377",

publisher = "Pergamon Press",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Misfits and compliance patterns in the transposition and implementation of the Habitats Directive—four cases

AU - Frederiksen, Pia

AU - van der Sluis, Theo

AU - Vadineanu, Angheluta

AU - Terkenli, Theano S.

AU - Gaube, Veronika

AU - Busck, Anne Gravsholt

AU - Vesterager, Jens Peter

AU - Geamana, Nicoleta

AU - Schistou, Despoina E.

AU - Pedroli, Bas

PY - 2017

Y1 - 2017

N2 - This paper investigates the transposition and implementation of the Habitats Directive in four European member states, namely Denmark, the Netherlands, Greece, and Romania, and the role that institutional misfits have played in more or less successful implementation processes. Departing in the ‘Worlds of Compliance’ literature, it also explores if this typology can be useful for understanding the ways member states address institutional adaptation pressures in the implementation steps following the transposition phase. The requirements in the Habitats Directive expanded most member states’ nature conservation frameworks, especially in the obligation to introduce pro-active conservation, and it also laid down a number of steps to be taken for creating the European Natura 2000 network. It was found that the transposition did mostly follow general compliance types, but that these types also helped understand the extent and adequacy of adaptations and changes to the institutional framework in the implementation processes following the directive's adoption. Implementation challenges were different for different countries. They showed a need to align institutional frameworks for a) Natura 2000 in areas with several existing types of landscape protections and ensuing spatial and institutional overlaps; b) clarifying the roles and responsibilities of various authorities involved in implementation; c) ensuring coordination with the other sectorial policy areas that interact with the Habitats Directive (such as the Nitrate Directive and the Water Framework Directive). It turned out that there could be a need for more flexible and less-top-down European legislation, providing a larger room-for-manoeuvre for integration with domestic approaches.

AB - This paper investigates the transposition and implementation of the Habitats Directive in four European member states, namely Denmark, the Netherlands, Greece, and Romania, and the role that institutional misfits have played in more or less successful implementation processes. Departing in the ‘Worlds of Compliance’ literature, it also explores if this typology can be useful for understanding the ways member states address institutional adaptation pressures in the implementation steps following the transposition phase. The requirements in the Habitats Directive expanded most member states’ nature conservation frameworks, especially in the obligation to introduce pro-active conservation, and it also laid down a number of steps to be taken for creating the European Natura 2000 network. It was found that the transposition did mostly follow general compliance types, but that these types also helped understand the extent and adequacy of adaptations and changes to the institutional framework in the implementation processes following the directive's adoption. Implementation challenges were different for different countries. They showed a need to align institutional frameworks for a) Natura 2000 in areas with several existing types of landscape protections and ensuing spatial and institutional overlaps; b) clarifying the roles and responsibilities of various authorities involved in implementation; c) ensuring coordination with the other sectorial policy areas that interact with the Habitats Directive (such as the Nitrate Directive and the Water Framework Directive). It turned out that there could be a need for more flexible and less-top-down European legislation, providing a larger room-for-manoeuvre for integration with domestic approaches.

KW - Environmental policy

KW - Goodness of fit

KW - Habitats Directive implementation

KW - Institutions

KW - Natura 2000 management

KW - Worlds of Compliance

U2 - 10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.12.010

DO - 10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.12.010

M3 - Journal article

AN - SCOPUS:85009913054

SN - 0264-8377

VL - 62

SP - 337

EP - 350

JO - Land Use Policy

JF - Land Use Policy

ER -

Misfits and compliance patterns in the transposition and implementation of the Habitats Directive—four cases

Abstract

Adgang til dokumentet

Fingeraftryk

Citationsformater