Skip to main content

Legitimacy of Species Management

The Great Cormorant in the EU

  • Chapter
Legitimacy In European Nature Conservation Policy

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Reference

  • Bonn Convention (1997) Action Plan for the Management of the Great Cormorant. Proceedings of ‘Expert Meeting’. Convention on Migratory Species (CMS), Copenhagen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carss, D., ed. (2003) Reducing the conflict between cormorants and fisheries on a pan-European Scale. REDCAFE – Final Report. Banchory, United Kingdom, Centre for Ecology & Hydrology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, B. B., K. Blackstock and F. Rauschmayer (2005). “‘Recruitment”, “composition” and “mandate” Issues in deliberative processes: Should we focus on arguments rather than individuals?’ Environment and Planning C – Government and Policy 23(4): 599–615.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Alliance of Anglers (1998) ‘Situation of the cormorant in Europe.’ EEA, Amersfoort, Netherlands, 48 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Union (2004) ‘Official Journal of the European Union.’ Notice No. 2004/C 65 E/170, Subject: Predatory sea birds.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, H. and G. Wilson (2000) ‘Biting the bullet: Civil society, social learning and the transformation of local governance.’ World Development 28(11): 1891–1906.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kauffmann, M. (1999) ‘Legalität/Legitimität.’ In H. J. Sandkühler (ed.): Enzyklopädie Philosophie. Hamburg: Felix Meiner, pp. 783–787.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koed, A., H. Baktoft and B. D. Bak (2005) ‘Causes of mortality of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) and brown trout (Salmo trutta) smolts in a restored river and its estuary.’ River Research and Applications 21: 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krämer, L. (2000) EC Environmental Law. London: Sweet & Maxwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marion, L. (2003) ‘Recent Development of the Breeding and Wintering Population of Great Cormorants Phalacrocorax carbo in France – Preliminary Results of the Effects of a Management Plan of the Species.’ Die Vogelwelt 124(Cormorants: Ecology and Management (supplement)): 35–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mathiesen, C., T. Olesen, D. C. Wilson, R. Varjopuro, O. Zwirner, H. Wittmer, S. Moretti, R. Ferreira dos Santos, L. Vasconcelos, G. Baptista, J. Gomes, L. Madruga, N. Franco, P. Antunes, K. Bruckmeier and C. H. Larsen (ed’s) (2004) Discourse Analysis (EU R& D project FRAP: Framework for Reconciliation Action Plans). Leipzig: UFZ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Similä, J., R. Varjopuro, A. Kranz, I. Glitzner, K. Polednikova, L. Polednik, T. Olesen, R. Thum, K. Schwerdtner, I. Ring, L. Madruga, F. Mil Homens, S. Moretti, G. Minarelli, C. Scalabrino, R. Ferreira dos Santos, P. Antunes, K. Bruckmeier and C. H. Larsen (ed’s) (2004) Framework Reconciliation Action Plan: Module Legal and Institutional Basis (EU R& D project FRAP: Framework for Reconciliation Action Plans). Leipzig: UFZ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steelman, T. A. and W. Ascher (1997) ‘Public involvement methods in natural resource policy making: Advantages, disadvantages and trade-offs.’ Policy Sciences 30: 71–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stirling, A. (2006) ‘Analysis, participation and power: Justification and closure in participatory multi-criteria analysis.’ Land Use Policy 23(1): 95–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thum, R. (2004) ‘Rechtliche Instrumente zur Lösung von Konflikten zwischen Artenschutz und wirtschaftlicher Nutzung natürlicher Ressourcen durch den Menschen am Beispiel Kormoranschutz and Teichwirtschaft [Legal instruments for resolving conflicts between species conservation and human use of natural ressources, exemplified by the conservation of cormorants and pond aquaculture].’ Natur und Recht 9: 580–587.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thum, R. (2005) ‘Zur RechtmäSSigkeit so genannter Kormoranverordnungen [The lawfulness of so-called cormorant bye-laws].’ Agrar- und Umweltrecht 2005(5): 148–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Eerden, M. (1996) ‘Recent meetings about cormorants in Europe.’ WI – CRG Bulletin 2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wittmer, H., F. Rauschmayer and B. Klauer (2006) ‘How to select instruments for the resolution of environmental conflicts?’ Land Use Policy 23(1): 1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2008 Springer

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Rauschmayer, F., Behrens, V. (2008). Legitimacy of Species Management. In: Keulartz, J., Leistra, G. (eds) Legitimacy In European Nature Conservation Policy. The International Library of Environmental, Agricultural and Food Ethics, vol 14. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6510-1_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics