Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Contemporary Issues in Environmental Law

Part of the book series: Environmental Protection in the European Union ((ENVPROTEC,volume 5))

  • 1215 Accesses

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.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
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 EPUB and 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

Notes

  1. 1.

    Definition in the Convention on Biological Diversity, Rio, 1992, art. 2.

  2. 2.

    Johannsdottir et al. (2010), p. 140.

  3. 3.

    On the debate of the notion of ‘intrinsic value’ of biodiversity included in the preamble to the CBD, see Bowman (1996), p. 21.

  4. 4.

    See the text of the 1972 Unesco Convention on Cultural and Natural Heritage.

  5. 5.

    Sainteny (2012), pp. 213–222.

  6. 6.

    Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Our life insurance, our natural capital: An EU biodiversity strategy to 2020, 3.5.2011, COM (2011) 244 final, p. 3.

  7. 7.

    Birne et al. (2009), p. 584.

  8. 8.

    Data included in the report of the EU to the Conference of Parties of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Fifth report of the European Union to the Convention on Biological Diversity, June 2014, p. 4.

  9. 9.

    European Union, country profile. http://www.cbd.int/countries/profile/default.shtml?country=eur#measures (last accessed on 15 November 2015).

  10. 10.

    Birne (1996), p. 212.

  11. 11.

    Fifth report of the European Union to the Convention on Biological Diversity, June 2014, p. 4.

  12. 12.

    European Council conclusions of 26 March 2010 (EUCO 7/10).

  13. 13.

    Established by the UN General Assembly Resolution no. 65/161, 11 March 2011.

  14. 14.

    Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Our life insurance, our natural capital: An EU biodiversity strategy to 2020, 3.5.2011, COM (2011) 244 final, p. 1.

  15. 15.

    Ivi, p. 5.

  16. 16.

    Decision no. 1386/2013/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 2013, on a General Union Environment Action Programme to 2020 ‘Living well, within the limits of our planet’, O.J. L 354/171 (2013).

  17. 17.

    Decision no. 1386/2013, recital 23, and para. 6 of the annex.

  18. 18.

    Proelss et al. (2013) emphasise four main actions, namely comprehensive scientific knowledge in order to have a regular adaptation of the annexes, strategic conservation plans for highly threatened species, an improved ‘on-ground’ monitoring system and substantial financial resources to be also invested in education.

  19. 19.

    The definition of natural capital is provided by Financing Natura 2000, EU funding opportunities in 2014–2020, a guidance handbook issued by the EU Commission, June 2014, p. 16. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/financing/docs/Natura2000financingHandbook_part%201.pdf (last accessed on 15 November 2015). ‘Economic metaphor that refers to the limited stocks of biophysical resources found on Earth, commonly used to refer to the socio-economic importance and value of nature in the context of green economy’. The handbook also highlights other favourable aspects, namely better food and water security, employment, educational opportunities and cost-effective solutions for mitigating and/or adapting to climate change, and increasing social inclusion in rural areas and other regions.

  20. 20.

    Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds, O.J. L 103/1 (1979), and Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds (codified version), O.J. L 20/7 (2010).

  21. 21.

    Council Directive 92/43 of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, O.J. L 206/7 (1992), last amended by Council Directive 2013/17/EU of 13 May 2013 adapting certain directives in the field of environment, by reason of the accession of the Republic of Croatia, O.J. L 158/193 (2013).

  22. 22.

    It is not possible to analyse all the legal instruments that preceded the convention. As for conservation issues, see the 1971 Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat (Ramsar Convention, the first global instrument on habitat), the 1972 Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (World Heritage Convention), the 1973 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) and the 1979 Bonn Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS). The earliest one is the 1950 Birds Convention. See Beyerlin and Marauhn (2011), p. 55 ff. p. 181 ff.

  23. 23.

    Boyle (1996), p. 33. For the history of negotiations and the structure of the convention, see Boyle (1996), p. 34 ff., and Boyle (1994).

  24. 24.

    Brown Weiss (2013), p. 71. The author argues that fresh water is a common concern of humankind.

  25. 25.

    In this sense, see Brunnée (2007).

  26. 26.

    Johnston (1997), p. 220.

  27. 27.

    29 January 2000, in force as of 11 September 2003.

  28. 28.

    29 October 2010, in force as of 12 October 2014.

  29. 29.

    Aichi Biodiversity Targets. https://www.cbd.int/sp/targets/.

  30. 30.

    Johannsdottir et al. (2010), p. 142. Mackenzie (2012), p. 29. The term ‘open-ended’ does not mean that the convention is an act of soft law. States’ parties must abide by the treaty. The term refers to the vagueness of the provisions.

  31. 31.

    On migratory species, Proelss (2012).

  32. 32.

    CETS no. 104. The preamble recalls the ‘intrinsic value’ of biodiversity as in the CBD and anticipates the concept of ‘natural heritage’ later used by the EC: ‘wild flora and fauna constitute a natural heritage of aesthetic, scientific, cultural, recreational, economic and intrinsic value that needs to be preserved and handed on to future generations’.

  33. 33.

    See, among others, Déjeant-Pons (1997) and Lasén Diaz (2010).

  34. 34.

    Lasén Diaz (2010), p. 185.

  35. 35.

    Jones G QC (2012b), pp. 19–21.

  36. 36.

    Standing Committee, Resolution No. 5 (1998) concerning the rules for the Network of Areas of Special Conservation Interest (Emerald Network), 4 December 1998.

  37. 37.

    See supra, fn. 20 and 21.

  38. 38.

    Jack (2006), p. 304.

  39. 39.

    See, inter alia, Fleurke and Trouwborst (2014), Jans et al. (2013), Romi (2013), Jones (2012c), García Ureta (2012), De Sadeleer (2005), De Sadeleer and Born (2004), Verschuuren (2004), Lasén Diaz (2001), and Jans (1996), p. 354 ff.

  40. 40.

    See the public consultation launched by the EU Commission addressing the causes of biodiversity losses and asking for suggestions. Public Consultation on the future EU Initiative on No Net Loss of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, from 06/05/2014 to 10/17/2014.

  41. 41.

    Recital 4, Birds Directive, 2009.

  42. 42.

    Art. 7 Birds Directive.

  43. 43.

    Art. 4, para. 1, Birds Directive.

  44. 44.

    BirdLife identifies Important Bird and Biodiversity Areas (IBAs). The value of BirdLife’s IBA inventory as a ‘shadow list’ of SPAs has repeatedly been recognised by the European Court of Justice and the European Commission in a series of cases brought against Member States for failure to designate sufficient SPAs. This has helped to bring about an increase in the total area of IBAs designated as SPAs, from 23 % in 1993 to 67 % (47 million hectares) in 2013. However, one-third of the total area of IBAs remains undesignated. BirdLife International (2013) Designating Special Protection Areas in the European Union. Presented as part of the BirdLife State of the world’s birds website. Available from: http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/sowb/casestudy/244 (last accessed on 15 November 2015).

  45. 45.

    The provisions of the Directive take direct effect. See ECJ, C-355/90, Commission v. Spain, ECR I-4221, para. 22. See De Sadeleer (2005), p. 222; Verschurren (2004), p. 52.

  46. 46.

    The three stages are as follows: first, a member state proposes a list of sites that either host certain habitat types or certain endangered species. Secondly, the Commission decides which of the proposed sites will be declared ‘sites of community importance’. Thirdly, the member state concerned designates that site as a special area of conservation as soon as possible and within six years at most. A detailed description of the procedure in De Sadeleer (2005), p. 227 ff.

  47. 47.

    Art. 1, letter e), Habitats Directive.

  48. 48.

    Art. 6, para. 1, Habitats Directive.

  49. 49.

    Art. 6, para 2, Habitats Directive.

  50. 50.

    As for plant species, the prohibition of the deliberate picking, collecting, cutting, uprooting or destruction of such plants in their natural range in the wild; the keeping, transport and sale or exchange and offering for sale or exchange of specimens of such species taken in the wild.

  51. 51.

    In a case related to an alleged violation of art. 4, the Commission argued that no exception was contemplated to Art. 4, para. 4, (obligation to take positive measures to avoid deteriorations of SPAs). The ECJ affirmed that Member States could only reduce the extent of SPAs on exceptional grounds that corresponded to a general interest superior to that represented by the directive’s ecological objective, excluding from this objective economic and recreational needs of the State concerned. The Birds Directive is stricter than the Habitats Directive as far as exceptions are concerned. ECJ, 28 February 1991, Commission v. Germany (Leybucht), C-57/89, 1991 I-883. Birne (1996), pp. 224–225; Verschuuren (2004), p. 46. Art. 4 was replaced by Art. 6 of the Habitats Directive. The regime of Art. 4 is still applicable to areas which have not yet been classified but should have been so classified (see De Sadeleer (2005), pp. 236–237).

  52. 52.

    Moreno Molina (2013), p. 79 ff.

  53. 53.

    Guidance document: Managing Natura 2000 sites: The provisions of Article 6 of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC (2000), Guidance document on the Assessment of Plans and Projects significantly affecting Natura 2000 sites (November 2001), Guidance document on Article 6(4) (updated on 7.12.2012). http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/guidance_en.htm#art6 (last accessed on 15 November 2015).

  54. 54.

    The famous Waddenzee case, 7 Sept 2004, C-127/02, 2004 I-07045.

  55. 55.

    Krämer (2009), p. 64.

  56. 56.

    Guidance document, 2012, at 6.

  57. 57.

    Another derogation provided by the Habitats Directive, which cannot be addressed in these pages, is enshrined in Art. 16 and refers to cases in which the killing of animals may be considered legitimate in order to prevent, e.g. serious damage in particular to crops, livestock, forests, fisheries and water, or in the interests of public health and public safety. See, for example, ECJ, 14 June 2007, Commission v. Finland, C-342/05, 2007 I-04713. The Court found Finland in violation of Art. 16, because it issued wolf hunting permits without relying on an assessment of the conservative status of species. On the problem related to the return of certain species like lynxes, wolves and bears in Europe and their cohabitation with humans, see Trouwborst (2010) and Borgström (2012).

  58. 58.

    ECJ, 11 April 2013, Sweetman, C-258/11.

  59. 59.

    The road scheme would have resulted in the permanent loss of about 1.47 ha of protected limestone pavement, which was defined a priority habitat, within a distinct sub-area of 85 ha, forming part of a total area of 270 ha of such limestone pavement in the Lough Corrib Natura 2000 site.

  60. 60.

    Advocate General Opinion in Sweetman, para. 46. It is a well-established rule of treaty interpretation that when different linguistic versions differ, their meanings should be considered in light of the objective and the scope of the treaty.

  61. 61.

    Advocate General Opinion in Sweetman, para. 54.

  62. 62.

    See also Jones (2012a), p. 157.

  63. 63.

    Advocate General Opinion in Sweetman, para. 64.

  64. 64.

    Advocate General Opinion in Sweetman, para. 65. As the Advocate General acknowledges, however, of the 15–20 requests so far made to the Commission, only one has received a negative response (para. 66). See Nollkaemper (1997) and Krämer (2009), p. 66 ff.

  65. 65.

    Advocate General Opinion in Sweetman, para. 67.

  66. 66.

    Schoukens (2014), p. 6.

  67. 67.

    ECJ, Sweetman, para. 48. See also Schoukens (2014), p. 11: ‘From an ecological point of view […], the importance of the Court’s insistence on the achievement of the good conservation status at the level of a Natura 2000 site cannot be understated’.

  68. 68.

    Several Irish courts applied the Sharpston’s test in their decisions. See, for example, High Court of Ireland, judgment of 25 July 2014, Kelly v. An Bord Pleanála, [2014] IEHC 400.

  69. 69.

    ECJ, 15 June 2014, Briels, C-521/12.

  70. 70.

    ECJ, Briels, para. 29.

  71. 71.

    ECJ, Briels, para. 33.

  72. 72.

    Advocate General Opinion in Briels, para. 36.

  73. 73.

    Advocate General Opinion in Briels, para. 42.

  74. 74.

    Advocate General Opinion in Briels, para. 41.

  75. 75.

    ECJ, 11 September 2012, C-43/10, Nomarchiaki Aftodioikisi Aitoloakarnanias and Others v Ypourgos Perivallontos, Chorotaxias kai Dimosion ergon and Others (Acheloos).

  76. 76.

    ECJ, Acheloos, para. 126. On the fact that the Court should have followed a more ‘environmentally-minded’ interpretation, taking into account public participation, see Morgera (2014), p. 673. 

  77. 77.

    Fn. 20 of its conclusions. The same words have been used by Nollkaemper (1997), p. 286.

  78. 78.

    Nollkaemper (1997), p. 286.

  79. 79.

    Birne et al. (2009), p. 164. On the precautionary principle, see, inter alia, Fitzmaurice (2009), pp. 62–65; De Sadeleer (2009); Wiener (2007); McIntyre and Mosedale (1997).

  80. 80.

    ECJ, Briels, para. 32.

  81. 81.

    EEA, The European Environment, State and Outlook 2010, 2010, at 55.

  82. 82.

    ECJ, 3 April 2014, Cascina tre pini, C-301/12. The case concerned the declassification of a site, situated near Milan-Malpensa airport, in the list of SCIs. The Court argued that where the qualities of a site definitely disappear, ‘continuing to restrict the use of that site might be an infringement of the right to property’ (para. 29). A mere allegation is, however, not enough, being necessary that ‘the degradation should make the site irretrievably unsuitable to ensure the conservation’. On this issue, see De Vido (2014).

  83. 83.

    De Vido (2014), p. 815. See also the opinion of the Advocate General Kokott, 13 Oct 2011, para. 227, ‘the reasons for a project are imperative and overriding only if they have greater importance than its negative effects on the areas protected by the Habitats Directive’.

  84. 84.

    Italy’s Fifth Report to CBD (2009–2013), p. 13. https://www.cbd.int/doc/world/it/it-nr-05-en.pdf (last accessed on 15 November 2015).

  85. 85.

    Italy’s Fifth Report to CBD, p. 23.

  86. 86.

    Italy’s Fifth Report to CBD, p. 40. The procedure aimed at transforming SCIs (sites of community importance) into SACs started in three Regions: Valle d’Aosta, Friuli Venezia-Giulia and Basilicata. The decree of 30 April 2014 designated some SACs in the alpine and continental biogeographical regions, belonging to the Lombardia region, in GU (Italian official journal) 19.05.2014, no. 114.

  87. 87.

    See Bellomo (2008), p. 303 and 307. Italy established national parks in 1922 (Abruzzo and Gran Paradiso), Switzerland in 1914, Spain in 1916. Law 6 December 1991, no. 394, ‘Legge quadro sulle aree protette’, in GU no. 292, 13.12.1991.

  88. 88.

    The ‘regionalismo’ (which means the establishment of regional parks managed by Italian regions) started in 1972 thanks to the adoption of the Decree (D.P.R.), 26 October 1972, no. 11, in GU no. 46, 19.02.1972. The protection of national parks, granted by a framework legislation adopted in 1991, has been extended to SACs and SPAs, although the doctrine has raised doubts on the legitimacy of this decision. In this sense, Brachini (2013), p. 636.

  89. 89.

    Law 11 Feb 1992, no. 157, in GU 25.02.1992, no. 46.

  90. 90.

    ECJ, 11 November 2010, Commission v. Italy, C-164/09, 2009 I-146.

  91. 91.

    Italy and the Regions Veneto and Liguria (another region whose legislation was found in violation of the Birds directive) amended their legislation, but, as acknowledged by the Commission, both entities continued issuing hunting derogations in breach of Art. 9 of the Directive. Therefore, the Commission sent two letters of formal notice against Italy in 2011. European Commission-IP/11/1435 24 Nov 2011.

  92. 92.

    20 Feb 2014, 2014/2006, C(2014) 934 final.

  93. 93.

    Decree (decreto-legge) 24 June 2014, no. 91, in GU 24.06.2014, no. 144, Art. 16.

  94. 94.

    Law 11 Jan 1992, no. 157.

  95. 95.

    http://www.politicheeuropee.it/normativa/19250/legge-europea-2014 (last accessed on 15 November 2015). On the ‘Legge europea’ (European law) adopted every year by Italy in order to comply EU obligations see Adam and Tizzano (2014), p. 883.

  96. 96.

    Decree (DPR) 8 September 1997, no. 357, in GU 23.10.1997, no. 248, amended by DPR 12 March 2003, no. 120.

  97. 97.

    Brachini (2013), p. 633.

  98. 98.

    Decree (DM) 17 October 2007, in GU 6.11.2007, no. 258.

  99. 99.

    According to the Italian constitution (title V, art. 117), the central state has exclusive power to legislate on the protection of the environment and the ecosystem, while the Regions have concurrent legislative power in the ‘enhancement of environmental heritage’. This provision implies, according to the Italian constitutional Court, that the state must intervene whenever a regulation applicable to the whole national territory is necessary (Judgment 10–26 July 2002, no. 407).

  100. 100.

    Italian National Biodiversity Strategy, 2010, p. 13. www.minambiente.it.

  101. 101.

    The situation has improved since the adoption of the strategy and much data have been transmitted to the European Commission. See the First report on the National Biodiversity Strategy, 2011–2012, p. 19.

  102. 102.

    ECJ, 21 July 2011, Azienda agro-zootecnica Franchini Sarl and Eolica Altamura (Eolica Altamura) v. Regione Puglia (Alta Murgia), C-2/10.

  103. 103.

    ECJ, Alta Murgia, para. 48.

  104. 104.

    ECJ, Alta Murgia, para. 50.

  105. 105.

    ECJ, Alta Murgia, para. 53.

  106. 106.

    ECJ, Alta Murgia, para. 75.

  107. 107.

    Tar Puglia, Sez. 1, judgment 3 May 2013, n. 674.

  108. 108.

    EU Commission, Wind Energy Developments and Natura 2000, 2011, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/docs/Wind_farms.pdf (last accessed on 15 November 2015).

  109. 109.

    EU Commission, Wind Energy Developments and Natura 2000, p. 29.

  110. 110.

    Hence, for example, the Italian constitutional court has considered several regional laws prohibiting wind turbines as illegitimate. In some cases, the problem was the discriminatory application of the regional law; in other cases, the Court affirmed that international and EU norms spur and facilitate the production of renewable energy (regarding the law of the Veneto region of 18 March 2011, no. 7, recante ‘Legge finanziaria regionale per l’esercizio 2011’. Italian Constitutional Court, judgment no. 85/2012).

  111. 111.

    Gillespie (1997) pp. 176–178.

  112. 112.

    Iovino (2008), p. 83.

  113. 113.

    Iovino (2008), p. 83.

References

  • Adam R, Tizzano A (2014) Manuale di diritto dell’Unione europea. Giappichelli, Torino: Giappichelli

    Google Scholar 

  • Bellomo G (2008) I modelli di conservazione e valorizzazione nelle aree naturali protette: profili italiani e comparati. Rivista giuridica dell’ambiente:291–324

    Google Scholar 

  • Beyerlin U, Marauhn T (2011) International environmental law. Hart Publishing, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 211–234

    Google Scholar 

  • Birne P, Boyle A, Redgwell C (2009) International law and the environment. OUP, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Borgström S (2012) Legitimacy issues in Finnish wolf conservation. J Environ Law 24:451–476

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 5–32

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 11–127

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 33–49

    Google Scholar 

  • 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:629–639

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown Weiss E (2013) International law for a water-scarce world. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 550–573

    Google Scholar 

  • De Sadeleer N (2005) From natural sanctuaries to ecological networks. Yearb Eur Environ Law 5:215–252

    Google Scholar 

  • De Sadeleer N (2009) The precautionary principle as a device for greater environmental protection: lessons from EC courts. RECIEL 18:3–10

    Google Scholar 

  • De Sadeleer N, Born CH (2004) Droit international et communautaire de la biodiversité. Dalloz, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • 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:801–817

    Google Scholar 

  • 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:969–990

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitzmaurice M (2009) Contemporary issues in international environmental law. Elgar, Cheltenham

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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 128–162

    Google Scholar 

  • García Ureta A (2012) La Directiva de Hábitats de la Unión europea: Balance de 20 años. Aranzadi, Navarra

    Google Scholar 

  • Gillespie A (1997) International environmental law, politics and ethics. OUP, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Iovino S (2008) Le filosofie dell’ambiente. Carocci, Bari

    Google Scholar 

  • Jack B (2006) The European community and biodiversity loss: missing the target? RECIEL 15:304–315

    Google Scholar 

  • Jans JH (1996) European environmental law. Kluwer, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Jans JH, Macrory R, Moreno Molina AM (2013) National courts and EU environmental law. Europalaw Pub, Groeningen

    Google Scholar 

  • Johannsdottir A, Cresswell I, Bridgewater P (2010) The current framework for international governance of biodiversity: is it doing more harm than good? RECIEL 19:139–149

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnston S (1997) The convention on biological diversity: the next phase. RECIEL 6:219–230

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 151–166

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 1–23

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones QC G (2012c) The habitats directive: a developer’s obstacle course? Hart Publishing, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Krämer L (2009) The European commission’s opinions under Article 6(4) of the habitats directive. J Environ Law 21:59–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lasén Diaz C (2001) The EC habitats directive approaches its tenth anniversary: an overview. RECIEL 10:287–295

    Google Scholar 

  • Lasén Diaz C (2010) The Bern convention: 30 years of nature conservation in Europe. RECIEL 19:185–196

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 25–41

    Google Scholar 

  • McIntyre O, Mosedale T (1997) The precautionary principle as a norm of customary international law. J Environ Law 9:221–241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 75–105

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgera E (2014) Environmental law. In: Barnard C, Peers S (eds) European Union law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 651–680

    Google Scholar 

  • Nollkaemper A (1997) Habitat protection in European community law: evolving conceptions of a balance of interest. J Environ Law 9:271–286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Proelss A (2012) Migratory species, international protection. In: Wolfrum R (ed) Max Planck encyclopedia of public international law. OUP, Oxford, pp 160–169

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 6:462–467

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Romi R (2013) Droit international et européen de l’environnement. LGDJ, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Sainteny G (2012) La valeur économique de la biodiversité. In: Falque M, Lamotte H (eds) Property rights, economics and environment. Bruylant, Bruxelles, pp 213–222

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoukens (2014) The ruling of the court of justice in sweetman: how to avoid a death by a thousand cuts?’. Environ Law Netw Int 1:2–12

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 22:347–372

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 39–67

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Wiener JB (2007) Precaution. In: Bodansky D, Brunnée J, Hey E (eds) Oxford handbook of international environmental law. OUP, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Ca’ Foscari University, Venice, Italy

    Sara De Vido

Authors
  1. Sara De Vido
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sara De Vido .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Kunitachi, Tokyo, Japan

    Yumiko Nakanishi

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer Japan

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

De Vido, S. (2016). Protecting Biodiversity in Europe: The Habitats and Birds Directives and Their Application in Italy in an Evolving Perspective. In: Nakanishi, Y. (eds) Contemporary Issues in Environmental Law. Environmental Protection in the European Union, vol 5. Springer, Tokyo. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-4-431-55435-6_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation