Advertisement

Protecting Biodiversity in Europe: The Habitats and Birds Directives and Their Application in Italy in an Evolving Perspective

  • Sara De VidoEmail author
Chapter
  • 838 Downloads
Part of the Environmental Protection in the European Union book series (ENVPROTEC, volume 5)

Abstract

This chapter aims to analyse the EU Birds and Habitats Directives, dating back to 1979 and 1992 respectively, from an evolving perspective, stressing their role in the protection of biodiversity in Europe. In the first part of the chapter, we will argue that the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has played an important role in defining the balance between the feasibility of ‘human’ projects and the compelling need to protect habitats and species. The Court has developed a restrictive interpretation of the directives’ provisions, introducing derogations to the system of protection, and by virtue of its jurisprudence, it has stimulated the action of national legislators and judges in favour of biodiversity. In the second part of the chapter, we will analyse the transposition of both directives into the Italian legal system. In particular, we will focus on a recent case examined by the ECJ related to projects likely to affect protected habitats, and on an infringement procedure started against Italy concerning hunting. We will conclude that the balance between the protection of biodiversity and human activities refers to the interplay – not the opposition – between anthropocentrism and non-anthropocentrism; this balance needs to be achieved by judges on a case-by-case basis, in light of the principles of proportionality and precaution.

Keywords

European Union Wind Turbine Precautionary Principle Habitat Directive Advocate General 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Adam R, Tizzano A (2014) Manuale di diritto dell’Unione europea. Giappichelli, Torino: GiappichelliGoogle Scholar
  2. Bellomo G (2008) I modelli di conservazione e valorizzazione nelle aree naturali protette: profili italiani e comparati. Rivista giuridica dell’ambiente:291–324Google Scholar
  3. Beyerlin U, Marauhn T (2011) International environmental law. Hart Publishing, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  4. Birne P (1996) The European community and preservation of biological diversity. In: Bowman M, Redgwell C (eds) International law and the conservation of biological diversity. Kluwer, London, pp 211–234Google Scholar
  5. Birne P, Boyle A, Redgwell C (2009) International law and the environment. OUP, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  6. Borgström S (2012) Legitimacy issues in Finnish wolf conservation. J Environ Law 24:451–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bowman M (1996) The nature, development and philosophical foundations of the biodiversity concept in international law. In: Bowman M, Redgwell C (eds) International law and the conservation of biological diversity. Kluwer, London, pp 5–32Google Scholar
  8. Boyle A (1994) The convention on biological diversity. In: Campiglio L, Pineschi L, Siniscalco F, Treves T (eds) The environment after Rio: international law and economics. Graham and Trotman, London, pp 11–127Google Scholar
  9. Boyle A (1996) The Rio Convention on biological diversity. In: Bowman M, Redgwell C (eds) International law and the conservation of biological diversity. Kluwer, London, pp 33–49Google Scholar
  10. Brachini E (2013) La regolamentazione degli interventi di trasformazione del territorio in attuazione della direttiva Habitat tra diritto europeo e diritto interno. Rivista giuridica dell’ambiente:629–639Google Scholar
  11. Brown Weiss E (2013) International law for a water-scarce world. Martinus Nijhoff, LeidenGoogle Scholar
  12. Brunnée J (2007) Common areas, common heritage, and common concern. In: Bodansky D, Brunnée J, Hey E (eds) Oxford handbook of international environmental law. OUP, Oxford, pp 550–573Google Scholar
  13. De Sadeleer N (2005) From natural sanctuaries to ecological networks. Yearb Eur Environ Law 5:215–252Google Scholar
  14. De Sadeleer N (2009) The precautionary principle as a device for greater environmental protection: lessons from EC courts. RECIEL 18:3–10Google Scholar
  15. De Sadeleer N, Born CH (2004) Droit international et communautaire de la biodiversité. Dalloz, ParisGoogle Scholar
  16. De Vido S (2014) Tutela della biodiversità e rispetto dei diritti umani. Le sentenze CGUE nei casi Cascina tre pini e deviazione del fiume Acheloo. Rivista giuridica dell’ambiente:801–817Google Scholar
  17. Déjeant-Pons M (1997) Biodiversité européenne. La Convention de Berne du 19 septembre 1979 relative à la conservation de la vie sauvage et du milieu naturel de l’Europe. Rivista giuridica dell’ambiente:969–990Google Scholar
  18. Fitzmaurice M (2009) Contemporary issues in international environmental law. Elgar, CheltenhamCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fleurke F, Trouwborst A (2014) European regional approaches to the transboundary conservation of biodiversity: The Bern Convention and the EU Birds and Habitats Directives. In: Kotzé LJ, Marauhn T (eds) Transboundary governance of biodiversity. Brill/Nijhoff, Leiden, pp 128–162Google Scholar
  20. García Ureta A (2012) La Directiva de Hábitats de la Unión europea: Balance de 20 años. Aranzadi, NavarraGoogle Scholar
  21. Gillespie A (1997) International environmental law, politics and ethics. OUP, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  22. Iovino S (2008) Le filosofie dell’ambiente. Carocci, BariGoogle Scholar
  23. Jack B (2006) The European community and biodiversity loss: missing the target? RECIEL 15:304–315Google Scholar
  24. Jans JH (1996) European environmental law. Kluwer, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  25. Jans JH, Macrory R, Moreno Molina AM (2013) National courts and EU environmental law. Europalaw Pub, GroeningenGoogle Scholar
  26. Johannsdottir A, Cresswell I, Bridgewater P (2010) The current framework for international governance of biodiversity: is it doing more harm than good? RECIEL 19:139–149Google Scholar
  27. Johnston S (1997) The convention on biological diversity: the next phase. RECIEL 6:219–230Google Scholar
  28. Jones QC G (2012a) Adverse effect on the integrity of a European site: some unanswered questions. In: Jones QC G (ed) The habitats directive: a developer’s obstacle course? Hart Publishing, Oxford, pp 151–166Google Scholar
  29. Jones QC G (2012b) The Bern convention and the origins of the habitats directive. In: Jones QC G (ed) The habitats directive: a developer’s obstacle course? Hart Publishing, Oxford, pp 1–23Google Scholar
  30. Jones QC G (2012c) The habitats directive: a developer’s obstacle course? Hart Publishing, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  31. Krämer L (2009) The European commission’s opinions under Article 6(4) of the habitats directive. J Environ Law 21:59–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lasén Diaz C (2001) The EC habitats directive approaches its tenth anniversary: an overview. RECIEL 10:287–295Google Scholar
  33. Lasén Diaz C (2010) The Bern convention: 30 years of nature conservation in Europe. RECIEL 19:185–196Google Scholar
  34. Mackenzie C (2012) Comparison of the habitats directive with the 1992 convention on biological diversity. In: Jones QC G (ed) The habitats directive: a developer’s obstacle course? Hart Publishing, Oxford, pp 25–41Google Scholar
  35. McIntyre O, Mosedale T (1997) The precautionary principle as a norm of customary international law. J Environ Law 9:221–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Moreno Molina AM (2013) Direct effect and state liability. In: Jans JH, Macrory R, Moreno Molina AM (eds) National courts and EU environmental law. Europalaw Pub, Groeningen, pp 75–105Google Scholar
  37. Morgera E (2014) Environmental law. In: Barnard C, Peers S (eds) European Union law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 651–680Google Scholar
  38. Nollkaemper A (1997) Habitat protection in European community law: evolving conceptions of a balance of interest. J Environ Law 9:271–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Proelss A (2012) Migratory species, international protection. In: Wolfrum R (ed) Max Planck encyclopedia of public international law. OUP, Oxford, pp 160–169Google Scholar
  40. Proelss A, Hochkirch A, Schmitt T, Beninde J, Hiery M, Kinitz T, Kirschey J, Matenaar D, Rohde K, Stoefen A, Wagner N, Zink A, Lötters S, Veith M (2013) Europe needs a new vision for a Natura 2020 Network. Conserv Lett 6:462–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Romi R (2013) Droit international et européen de l’environnement. LGDJ, ParisGoogle Scholar
  42. Sainteny G (2012) La valeur économique de la biodiversité. In: Falque M, Lamotte H (eds) Property rights, economics and environment. Bruylant, Bruxelles, pp 213–222Google Scholar
  43. Schoukens (2014) The ruling of the court of justice in sweetman: how to avoid a death by a thousand cuts?’. Environ Law Netw Int 1:2–12Google Scholar
  44. Trouwborst (2010) Managing the carnivore comeback: international and EU species protection law and the return of lynx, wolf and bear to Western Europe. J Environ Law 22:347–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Verschuuren J (2004) Effectiveness of nature protection legislation in the EU and the US: the Birds and Habitats Directives and the endangered species act. In: Dieterich M, Van der Straaten J (eds) Cultural landscapes and land use: the nature conservation-society interface. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 39–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wiener JB (2007) Precaution. In: Bodansky D, Brunnée J, Hey E (eds) Oxford handbook of international environmental law. OUP, OxfordGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Japan 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ca’ Foscari UniversityVeniceItaly

Personalised recommendations