Macquarie Journal of International and Comparative Environmental Law
|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Macquarie Journal of International and Comparative Environmental Law |
|
NIKOLAOS E FARANTOURIS[∗]
The Mediterranean wetlands have high social and cultural significance, and they also provide essential ecosystem services. Therefore their ongoing protection is of great concern. This article presents an analysis of the international and EU regulatory framework for the protection of wetlands with particular reference to the Mediterranean basin. It attempts to present an overview on the status of wetlands under international and EU law and analyse the legal aspects of main concern to sustainable development and protection of wetlands at international, EU and national levels. The case study of Greece is an illustration of one Mediterranean EU Member State’s implementation of wetland relevant legislation.
For thousands of years, the wetlands around the Mediterranean basin have provided essential services to the people of the region and have acted as a backdrop to their social and cultural activities. In recent history, and especially in the first part of the twentieth century, Mediterranean wetlands have been destroyed and degraded to prevent water-borne diseases, to expand agriculture and to create room for the construction of housing, industrial and tourist facilities for increasing human populations.[1] Specifically, 73% of the marshes in northern Greece have been drained since 1930; 86% of the 78 most important wetlands in France have been degraded by official public policies in the last thirty years; Spain has lost an estimated 60% of its original wetland area; while 15% of the area of lakes and marshes in northern and central Tunisia (and 84% of the wetlands in the Tunisian sector of the catchment of the River Medjerdah, the major river flowing from Algeria into northern Tunisia) have been lost. The last decades have seen a realisation that this degradation of Mediterranean wetlands has brought about a loss of the functions and values originally provided free of charge by wetlands, including: sediment and erosion control; maintenance of water quality and abatement of pollution; maintenance of surface and underground water supply; support for fisheries; grazing and agriculture; outdoor recreation and education for human society; and provision of habitats for flora and fauna.[2]
The objective of wetlands protection was first clearly expressed at the “MAR” Conference held in the Camargue, France, in 1962.The Conference eventually led to the adoption of the international Convention on Wetlands at Ramsar, in Iran in 1971. In 1975 the Barcelona Convention was established, initially to combat marine pollution in the Mediterranean, whilst the Bern Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats and the Bonn Convention on Migratory Species were concluded in 1979.
In recent years, as concern at the loss of wetlands has become more widespread, the pace of remedial action has been stepped up. The Grado Symposium in 1991 adopted as its goal: “to stop and reverse the loss and degradation of Mediterranean wetlands”. From the Grado Symposium grew MedWet, a partnership of an original kind between the European Commission, the Ramsar Bureau, the governments of France, Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain, and several Non-Government Organisations (NGOs), such as Wetlands International, WWF International, Le Station Biologique de la Tour du Valat and the Greek Biotope/Wetland Centre. The idea behind the MedWet project was to produce and test a number of tools of relevance to conservation and wise use of wetlands throughout the Mediterranean. In 1992, the Convention on Biological Diversity was adopted in Rio de Janeiro, and the UN Commission on Sustainable Development was established in New York. In 1995, the Barcelona Convention adopted new protocols which gave much greater attention to Mediterranean wetlands and coastal areas.
The present study is an analysis of the international and EU regulatory framework for the protection of wetlands with particular reference to the Mediterranean basin. It attempts to present an overview on the status of wetlands under international and EU law and analyse legal aspects which are of main concern to wetlands’ sustainable development and protection at international, EU and national levels. The case of Greece is used as a paradigm for the implementation of the relevant legislation by a Mediterranean EU Member State with particular interest to wetlands.
The Convention on Wetlands is an intergovernmental treaty adopted on 2 February 1971 in the Iranian city of Ramsar, on the southern shore of the Caspian Sea.[3] Ramsar is the first of the modern global intergovernmental treaties on the conservation and sustainable use of natural resources. However, compared with more recent conventions, its provisions are relatively straightforward and general. Over the years, the Conference of the Contracting Parties (COP) has further developed and interpreted the basic tenets of the treaty text and succeeded in keeping the work of the Convention abreast of changing world perceptions, priorities, and trends in environmental thinking. The official name of the treaty, The Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat, reflects the original emphasis upon the conservation and wise use of wetlands primarily as habitat for water birds. Over the years, however, the Convention has broadened its scope of implementation to cover all aspects of wetland conservation and wise use, recognizing wetlands as ecosystems that are extremely important for biodiversity conservation and for the wellbeing of human communities, thus fulfilling the full scope of the Convention text.[4] For this reason, the increasingly common use of the short form of the treaty’s title, the “Convention on Wetlands”, is entirely appropriate.[5]
The Convention entered into force in 1975. Though the central Ramsar message is the need for the sustainable use of all wetlands, the flagship of the Convention is the List of Wetlands of International Importance (the “Ramsar List”).[6] At present, the Parties have designated for this List more than 1,634 wetlands for special protection as “Ramsar sites”, covering 145 million hectares (1.45 million square kilometres), which is larger than the surface area of France, Germany, Spain, and Switzerland combined. Wetlands are areas where water is the primary factor controlling the environment and the associated plant and animal life. They occur where the water table is at or near the surface of the land, or where the land is covered by shallow water. The Ramsar Convention takes a broad approach in determining the wetlands that come under its aegis. Under the text of the Convention, wetlands are defined as: “areas of marsh, fen, peatland or water, whether natural or artificial, permanent or temporary, with water that is static or flowing, fresh, brackish or salt, including areas of marine water the depth of which at low tide does not exceed six metres”.[7] For the purpose of protecting coherent sites, it is provided that wetlands to be included in the Ramsar List of internationally important wetlands “may incorporate riparian and coastal zones adjacent to the wetlands, and islands or bodies of marine water deeper than six metres at low tide lying within the wetlands”.[8] The Ramsar Convention has adopted a classification system of wetlands which includes 42 types, grouped into three categories: marine and coastal wetlands, inland wetlands, and human-made wetlands.
Although the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) serves as Depositary for the Ramsar Convention, the latter is not part of the United Nations and UNESCO system of environment conventions and agreements. The Convention is responsible only to its Conference of the Contracting Parties, and its day-to-day administration has been entrusted to a secretariat under the authority of a Standing Committee elected by the COP. The Ramsar Secretariat is hosted by the World Conservation Union (IUCN) in Gland, Switzerland. The Ramsar Convention Secretariat carries out the day-to-day co-ordination of the Convention’s activities. It is headed by a Secretary General who answers to the Standing Committee and supervises the work of a small number of policy/technical and administrative staff. In November 2001 the MedWet Co-ordination Unit (later renamed the MedWet Secretariat) was opened in Athens, Greece. This is a 5-member outpost of the Ramsar Secretariat funded by the Government of Greece and members of the MedWet Committee.[9]
The mission of the Ramsar Convention, as adopted by the Parties in 1999 and refined in 2002, is “the conservation and wise use of all wetlands through local, regional and national actions and international co-operation, as a contribution towards achieving sustainable development throughout the world”. The Ramsar Convention is not a regulatory regime and has no punitive sanctions for violations of, or defaulting upon, treaty commitments. Nevertheless, its terms do constitute a solemn treaty and are binding in international law in that sense. The whole edifice is based upon an expectation of common and equitably shared transparent accountability. Failure to live up to that expectation could lead to political and diplomatic discomfort in international fora or the media, and, more generally, would prevent any party concerned from getting the most out of what would otherwise be a robust and coherent system of checks and balances and mutual support frameworks. Failure to meet the treaty’s commitments may also impact upon success in other ways, for example, in efforts to secure international funding for wetland conservation. In addition, some national jurisdictions now embody international Ramsar obligations in national law and/or policy with direct effect in their own court systems.[10]
The 6th meeting of the Conference of the Contracting Parties, held in Brisbane, Australia, in 1996, adopted an innovative Strategic Plan 1997-2002 which became a model for the planning processes of other conventions.[11] Following on from the success of that plan, the 2002 Conference of the Contracting Parties, in Valencia, Spain adopted the Strategic Plan 2003-2008. Its purpose was not only to continue the thrust of the first plan but also to take account of the fact that a broader approach to wetland conservation and sustainable development was still needed, notably in relation to poverty reduction and food and water security, integrated approaches to water management, climate change and its predicted impacts, increasing globalization of trade and reducing of trade barriers, the increasing role of the private sector, and the increasing influence of development banks and international development agencies.[12]
The benefits of co-ordination and collaboration amongst conventions and international organisations with related or overlapping missions have been widely recognized for some time. In fact, the Ramsar Secretariat has developed several synergies with other environment-related instruments. Similarly, the Secretariat has been taking vigorous steps to encourage Ramsar’s “Administrative Authorities” (the Secretariat and COP) to build close working relationships with their counterparts from the other conventions both at international and national level. In several cases, follow-up assessments of the tangible progress of these relationships have shown that the initiative has triggered policy development and legislative measures.
In January 1996, the secretariats of the Ramsar Convention and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)[13] signed a first Memorandum of Co-operation, and in November of that year, the 3rd CBD Conference of the Parties invited the Ramsar-created bodies “to cooperate as a lead partner” in implementing CBD activities related to wetlands. Accordingly, a Joint Work Plan 1998-1999 between the two conventions was developed and implemented, and then a second Joint Work Plan was successfully carried out for the period 2000-2001. A third Joint Work Plan, for the period 2002-2006, endorsed by the 6th CBD Conference of the Parties and by Ramsar 8th Conference of the Parties, continued to provide a blueprint for mutual co-operation between the conventions, and a fourth Joint Work Plan, for 2007 onwards, was prepared. The Conferences of the Parties of both conventions have also called for increased communication and cooperation between their subsidiary scientific bodies, the CBD’s Subsidiary Body for Scientific, Technical, and Technological Advice and the Ramsar Scientific and Technical Review Panel.
Moreover, in February 1997 the Ramsar secretariat and the secretariat of the Convention on Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS)[14] signed a Memorandum of Understanding. It seeks to ensure co-operation between the two secretariats in the fields of joint promotion of the two conventions, joint conservation action, data collection, storage and analysis and new agreements on migratory species, including endangered migratory species and species with an unfavourable conservation status. Some concrete results of this relationship have been observed, particularly with regards to co-ordinated work between Ramsar and the CMS’s African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbird Agreement (AEWA). A three-way Joint Work Plan between the secretariats of the CMS, AEWA, and the Ramsar Convention was signed in April 2004.
The Ramsar Secretariat was present in October 1997 at the first Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD)[15], where it distributed to the delegates an information document on “Wetlands in Arid Zones”. In December 1998, during the second UNCCD Conference of the Parties in Dakar, the Secretary General of the Ramsar Convention and the Executive Secretary of the UNCCD signed a Memorandum of Co-operation to help to increase communication between them, co-ordinate efforts, and avoid duplication. However, practical co-operation between the secretariats has been developing only slowly so far.
In May 1999 the Ramsar Secretariat and the UNESCO World Heritage Centre signed a Memorandum of Understanding. The Ramsar Secretariat and the World Heritage officer in charge of natural sites maintain a close working relationship with a view to promoting nominations of wetland sites under the two conventions and encouraging the establishment of joint national committees. World Heritage and Ramsar have since worked closely on joint expert advisory missions in recent years to Ichkeul in Tunisia, to Djoudj and Diawling in Senegal and Mauritania, and to Lake Srebarna in Bulgaria.
Other UN synergies include co-operation between the Ramsar Secretariat and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Conference of the Contracting Parties.[16] Ramsar also works closely with UNESCO and the Biosphere Programme under the terms of a joint programme of work first agreed to in 2002, and has a new co-operative agreement with the European Environment Agency (February 2006). An agreement was signed with the Global Terrestrial Observing System in June 2006, and the Secretariat has been working very closely with the European Space Agency on its GlobWetland project, which is developing monitoring and management tools based on earth observation data in a pilot project involving fifty Ramsar sites around the world. An agreement has occurred recently between Ramsar and the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, while co-operative agreements are under discussion with the UN Institute for Training and Research. Finally, the Ramsar Secretariat participates in the convention’s co-ordinating meetings organized by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and has contributed technical and financial resources to joint working groups and studies aimed at harmonizing the requirements of the biodiversity-related conventions.[17]
Resolution VIII.30 of the Ramsar Convention (2002) provides Guidance for the development of regional initiatives in the framework of the Convention on Wetlands, based upon the successful example of the Mediterranean Wetlands Initiative, or MedWet. MedWet is a co-ordination mechanism for wetland activities in the Mediterranean Basin, designed to involve all major stakeholders. Its goal is “to stop and reverse the loss and degradation of Mediterranean wetlands, as a contribution to the conservation of biodiversity and to sustainable development in the region.” In particular, the Strategy aims to contribute to the resolution of these problems, through the integration of conservation and wise use principles of wetland management into land-use planning, and to encourage the right management of scarce water resources, an issue of special concern in all Mediterranean countries. MedWet owes its origins to an international conference organized by the International Waterfowl & Wetlands Research Bureau (now Wetlands International) in Grado, Italy, in February 1991.[18] The first MedWet project (1992-1996), funded by the European Union and involving the then five EU Member States in the Mediterranean (France, Greece, Italy, Portugal, Spain), began building the collaborative MedWet network and developed regional methods and tools. MedWet culminated in a major Conference on Mediterranean Wetlands[19], at which the Mediterranean Wetlands Strategy, based on the first global Strategic Plan of the Ramsar Convention, was endorsed. The Strategy aims to take account of the results of the first phase of MedWet and of the essential elements of the other initiatives mentioned above, and to act as a regional application of the Ramsar Strategic Plan. The Strategy was drawn up in view of the need to integrate the conservation of wetland biodiversity with sustainable development. Throughout the text, “wise use” is considered as synonymous with “sustainable development”. The Strategy takes into account broader Mediterranean factors that determine the future of wetlands and in particular: poverty and economic inequality; pressure from population growth, immigration and mass tourism; and social and cultural conflicts.
In the same year (1996), the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, under whose guidance the MedWet Initiative had been developed, established the Mediterranean Wetlands Committee (MedWet/Com). MedWet/Com meets annually and guides the strategic direction and implementation of the Initiative. It includes representatives of twenty five Mediterranean governments, the Palestinian Authority, the European Commission, intergovernmental conventions, UN agencies, NGOs, and the relevant national wetland research centres.[20] Since 1999 MedWet has become a formal inter-regional structure for the implementation of the Ramsar Convention[21] and has served as a model for regional wetland co-operative structures elsewhere. A “MedWet Co-ordination Unit” (now called the MedWet Secretariat) was established under the Ramsar Secretariat. It comprises the MedWet Co-ordinator (who reports to the Secretary General) and four colleagues, all considered to be outpost Ramsar Secretariat staff. It is based in Athens, Greece, with the financial support of the Government of Greece. It is also assisted by the “MedWet Team” of the five aforementioned national research and conservation institutes.[22]
Following on from the success of MedWet, the Parties encouraged the proposal of additional initiatives for endorsement and possible financial support. The beginning was made in Resolution IX.7 (2005), Regional initiatives in the framework of the Ramsar Convention, whereby the Parties formally endorsed a number of initiatives as regional or sub-regional networks for capacity building and co-operation[23] and several others as regional centres for training.[24]
Resolution IX.7 recognized a number of other initiatives as having potential for operating within the Convention framework. The Ramsar Secretariat has effected several Memoranda of Co-operation with the UN Environment Programme Convention for the Protection and Development of the Marine Environment of the Wider Caribbean Region,[25] and with the Co-ordinating Unit of the Mediterranean Action Plan of the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment and the Coastal Region of the Mediterranean.[26] A memorandum was also signed with the Convention on the Protection and Sustainable Development of the Carpathians.[27] Moreover, the Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP) is a partner with the Ramsar Convention under a Joint Work Plan which includes the basing at SPREP offices in Samoa of an Associate Ramsar Officer for the Oceania region. Furthermore, the Ramsar Convention is closely involved in the work of the Lake Chad Basin Commission and the Niger Basin Authority, both of which have signed memoranda of co-operation with the Ramsar Secretariat. A new agreement has also been concluded with the Commission Internationale du Bassin Congo-Ougangui-Sang in March 2006.
The EU has always been concerned about the fact that a large number of species of wild birds naturally occurring in the European territory of the Member States are declining in number, very rapidly in some cases.[28] This decline represents a serious threat to the conservation of the natural environment, particularly because of the biological balances threatened thereby. The species of wild birds naturally occurring in the European territory of the Member States are mainly migratory species. According to the European Commission, such species constitute a common heritage, while effective bird protection is typically a trans-frontier environmental problem entailing common responsibilities. Accordingly, the conservation of the species of wild birds naturally occurring in the territory of the EU Member States, was deemed necessary to attain, within the operation of the common market, the Community’s objectives regarding the improvement of living conditions, a harmonious development of economic activities throughout the Community and a continuous and balanced expansion.[29] Moreover, the preservation, protection and improvement of the quality of the environment, including the conservation of natural habitats and wild fauna and flora, are an essential objective of general interest pursued by the Community.[30]
Council Directive 79/409/EEC[31] on the conservation of wild birds (the Birds Directive) was adopted in April 1979 as the first piece of EC nature policy legislation for the protection and management of all wild bird species occurring naturally in Europe.[32] The purpose of the Directive is to protect and manage these species and to regulate their hunting and capture. It concerns wild birds as well as their eggs, nests and habitats. The Directive also sets provisions for protecting and managing Special Protection Areas for rare, threatened and migratory bird species. These areas are now being included in the EU Natura 2000 network of designated areas, together with those proposed under the framework of the Habitats Directive.[33] To establish the Special Protection Areas (SPAs), the Birds Directive requires EU Member States to classify the most suitable areas for endangered and vulnerable bird species[34] and to take similar measures for migratory bird species, particularly with regard to wetlands of international importance. The focus on wetlands also helps the EU to fulfil its obligations to the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands.
Article 1 specifies what the Directive applies to. It concerns species, i.e. whole populations and individuals, whatever their provenance. Excluded are populations of domestic forms easily recognisable as such, even those which have returned to the wild state, as are species present in the Community only in populations deliberately or accidentally introduced and any individuals found which have clearly escaped from captivity. Also excluded are specimens living in captivity. The list of species of naturally occurring birds in the wild state in the European territory of the Member States is naturally built up by the addition of lists accepted by the avifauna committees of the Member States or, failing that, by the compilers of avifauna listings. Article 2 sets the objective of protecting all the bird species covered by the Directive and links this objective both to their ecological needs and to the public’s scientific, cultural, recreational and economic requirements. It explicitly provides for a policy of conservation on the one hand and of management and, if necessary, restoration or limitation on the other.
Article 3 expresses the absolute necessity to preserve or improve bird habitats, a sine qua non for achieving the aims of the Directive. It brings in the ideas of sufficient diversity and size of habitats. It provides for an approach based on two lines of action: creating protected and managed areas and taking general steps to ensure favourable development of habitats. Like Article 2, its approach is one not just of conserving habitats but also of restoring them and even creating new ones. The protection of habitats is an obligation based on formal commitments. Article 4 is a central element in the Directive. It describes the protective steps to be taken to ensure that the conservation of particular habitat is suitable for a number of particularly vulnerable species listed in Annex I to the Directive and for migratory species. Once again it takes a twin approach, with specific measures taken throughout the territory on the one hand and the establishment of a network of Special Protection Areas (SPAs) on the other. These are areas designated by the Member States sufficient in number and size to guarantee favourable conditions for the species in question throughout their territories. The obligations described in the first sentence of Article 4(4) of Directive 79/409/EEC have been replaced[35] by those of Article 6(2), (3) and (4) of Directive 92/43/EEC. Article 6(2), (3) and (4) of Directive 92/43/EEC reads as follows:
“1. Member States shall take appropriate steps to avoid, in the special areas of conservation, the deterioration of natural habitats and the habitats of species as well as disturbance of the species for which the areas have been designated, in so far as such disturbance could be significant in relation to the objectives of this Directive.
2. Any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site but likely to have a significant effect thereon, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects, shall be subject to appropriate assessment of its implications for the site in view of the site's conservation objectives. In the light of the conclusions of the assessment of the implications for the site and subject to the provisions of paragraph 4, the competent national authorities shall agree to the plan or project only after having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned and, if appropriate, after having obtained the opinion of the general public.
3. If, in spite of a negative assessment of the implications for the site and in the absence of alternative solutions, a plan or project must nevertheless be carried out for imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those of a social or economic nature, the Member State shall take all compensatory measures necessary to ensure that the overall coherence of NATURA 2000 is protected. It shall inform the Commission of the compensatory measures adopted. Where the site concerned hosts a priority natural habitat type and/or a priority species, the only considerations which may be raised are those relating to human health or public safety, to beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment or, further to an opinion from the Commission, to other imperative reasons of overriding public interest.”
Article 5 establishes a general system of protection, save where specific provisions are made. It prohibits killing or capturing birds, destroying or damaging their nests and eggs, taking eggs, disturbing birds, and keeping species (the hunting of which is prohibited by Article 7 or the capture of which is prohibited by Article 9). Generally speaking, to prevent commercial interests from exerting a possible harmful pressure on exploitation levels it is necessary to impose a general sales ban and to restrict all derogation to those species whose biological status so permits. Certain species[36] may, however, be sold provided that certain limits are respected. Article 6 therefore prohibits the sale of live or dead birds or any parts of birds of the species covered by the Directive, including those which may be hunted or captured, other than those listed in Annex III. Article 7 authorises hunting, including falconry. It limits hunting to the species listed in annex II, selected solely on the basis of biological criteria: population level, geographical distribution and reproductive rate. It requires that hunting must not jeopardise conservation efforts elsewhere in the distribution area and that it must comply with the principles of “wise use” and “ecologically balanced control”, compatible with the requirements of Article 2.[37]
Article 8 prohibits the use of all means of large-scale or non-selective capture or killing of birds, although Article 9 provides for the possibility of derogation from the Articles on hunting, capture, killing and sale, for three types of reason: a) the birds are assumed to have caused a particular problem or a particular kind of damage. This is only applicable “in the interests of public health and safety, in the interests of air safety, to prevent serious damage to crops, livestock, forests, fisheries and water, and for the protection of flora and fauna”. An exception may therefore be made “where there is no other satisfactory solution.”[38] b) For the purposes of research, teaching, repopulation or reintroduction, but always under strict supervision and where there is no other satisfactory solution[39]. c) “... under strictly supervised conditions and on a selective basis, the capture, keeping or other judicious use of certain birds in small numbers” may be permitted. “Judicious” means that such use must be conducive to the general objectives of the Directive.[40]
There can be no exemption either from the formal requirements laid down by the Directive for maintaining bird populations at levels corresponding to ecological, scientific and cultural requirements, while taking account of economic and recreational requirements (Article 2), or from the requirements to maintain habitats and to avoid pollution (Articles 3 and 4). Strict conditions are set for the granting of these derogations, including that there must be no satisfactory alternative and there must always be strict supervision. In the case of the third reason there is also the limitation to “small numbers”. This is of course a relative concept and, when the derogation concerns hunting, capture, killing or sale, is best expressed by a comparison between the losses due to these activities and the annual death rate of the populations concerned by the derogation. A derogation involving a loss amounting to less than 1% of the annual death rate for these populations may be considered as affecting a “small number”, since its impact is less than the uncertainty attached to the reproduction and mortality rates. In this case the loss is also “small” by comparison with the typical figures for hunting operations, which is compatible with dealing with hunting by means of a general provision (Article 7) of the Directive and capture, killing and sale by means of derogation.[41]
Article 10 of the Directive requires the Member States to carry out research work for the protection, management and exploitation of bird populations. Annex V to the Directive establishes a list of priorities for this. Finally, Member States are under an obligation to see that any introduction of bird species which do not occur naturally in the wild state in the European territory of the Member States does not prejudice the local flora and fauna. Member States have to consult the Commission on any introduction project.[42] Article 11 thus protects wild flora and fauna as a whole against unregulated introductions of species of bird that are not native to the European Union.
Most Member States have been active in fulfilling the obligations of the Birds Directive to establish Special Protection Areas. However, the percentage of national territory that has been designated varies widely from less than 2 % in France to over 15 % in Spain. As regards size, about one-third of the designated areas range from 100–1 000 ha, and about the same proportion from 1 000–10 000 ha. Some Member States have established Special Protection Areas in over 10 % of their land area. In addition, some Member States have designated substantial parts of their marine coastal waters. Differences between countries partly reflect their overall responsibilities for different threatened bird species as well as for wetlands and other habitats important for migratory species.[43] A precise target for the implementation of the Directive in terms of number of sites and area to be designated remains to be developed. The EU Natura 2000 network[44] includes marine areas. However, in total a relatively low surface area of marine Special Protection Areas is in place (ca. 14 % of the total SPA area) since Member States only relatively recently became active in establishing them in marine offshore waters.[45]
The main aim of this Directive (“Habitats Directive”) is to promote the maintenance of biodiversity, taking account of economic, social, cultural and regional requirements.[46] The Directive makes a contribution to the general objective of sustainable development by taking into account that the preservation of such biodiversity may in certain cases require the maintenance, or indeed the encouragement, of human activities.[47] In order to ensure the restoration or maintenance of natural habitats and species of Community interest at a favourable conservation status, the Habitats Directive designates special areas of conservation in order to create a coherent European ecological network according to a specified timetable. Accordingly, all the areas designated, including those classified now or in the future as special protection areas pursuant to Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds, have to be incorporated into the coherent European ecological network. It is therefore necessary, in each designated area, to implement the necessary measures having regard to the conservation objectives pursued. Sites eligible for designation are proposed by the Member States, but a procedure must be laid down to allow the designation, in exceptional cases, of a site which, although not proposed by a Member State, the Community nevertheless considers essential for either the maintenance or the survival of a priority natural habitat type or a priority species.
According to the Habitats Directive, an appropriate assessment must be made of any plan or programme likely to have a significant effect on the conservation objectives of a site which has been designated or is designated in the future. It is further recognized that the adoption of measures intended to promote the conservation of priority natural habitats and priority species of Community interest is a common responsibility of all Member States. This may, however, impose an excessive financial burden on certain Member States given, on the one hand, the uneven distribution of such habitats and species throughout the Community and, on the other, the fact that the “polluter pays” principle[48] can have only limited application in the special case of nature conservation. It was therefore agreed that, in this exceptional case, a contribution by means of Community co-financing should be provided for within the limits of the resources made available under the Community’s decisions.
According to the Directive, land-use planning and development policies should encourage the management of features of the landscape which are of major importance for wild fauna and flora. Thus, a system is envisaged for surveillance of the conservation status of the natural habitats and species covered by the Directive. Whereas a general system of protection is required for certain species of flora and fauna to complement Directive 79/409/EEC, provision is also made for management measures for certain species, including the prohibition of certain means of capture or killing, whilst providing for the possibility of derogations on certain conditions. With the aim of ensuring that the implementation of the Directive is monitored, the Commission is obliged to prepare periodically a composite report, based inter alia, on the information sent to it by the Member States regarding the application of national provisions adopted under the Habitats Directive. Moreover, a regulatory committee is set up to assist the Commission in the implementation of the Directive and in particular when decisions on Community co-financing are taken. Finally, provision has also been made for supplementary measures governing the reintroduction of certain native species of fauna and flora and the possible introduction of non-native species.
The European Community is a contracting party to the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats adopted at Bern on 19 September 1979.[49] In addition to national protection programs, the parties to the Convention considered that co-operation should be established at a European level. The Convention is intended to promote co-operation between the signatory States in order to conserve wild flora and fauna and their natural habitats and to protect endangered migratory species. The parties undertake, to: promote national policies for the conservation of wild flora, wild fauna and natural habitats; integrate the conservation of wild flora and fauna into national planning, development and environmental policies; promote education and disseminate information on the need to conserve species of wild flora and fauna and their habitats. The Convention prohibits the deliberate picking, collecting, cutting or uprooting of such plants. Therefore, the parties must take appropriate legislative and administrative measures to conserve the wild flora and fauna species.[50] The following actions are prohibited: all forms of deliberate capture, keeping and deliberate killing; the deliberate damage to or destruction of breeding or resting sites; the deliberate disturbance of wild fauna, particularly during the period of breeding, rearing and hibernation; the deliberate destruction or taking of eggs from the wild or keeping these eggs; the possession of and internal trade in these animals, alive or dead, including stuffed animals and any part or derivative thereof. Any exploitation of wild fauna[51] must be regulated in order to keep the populations out of danger (temporary or local prohibition of exploitation, regulation of transport or sale, etc.). The parties are prohibited from using indiscriminate means of capture and killing capable of causing the disappearance of, or serious disturbance to, the species. Finally, the Convention provides for exceptions to the above provisions: for the protection of flora and fauna, to prevent serious damage to crops, livestock, forests, fisheries, water and other forms of property, or in the interests of public health and safety.
The Commission has produced an Action Plan aimed at conserving biodiversity and preventing biodiversity loss within the European Union and internationally.[52] The Action Plan stipulates priority objectives, which are divided into four policy areas (biodiversity in the EU, the EU and global biodiversity, biodiversity and climate change, and the knowledge base). It further specifies four main supporting measures (financing, decision-making, building partnerships, and public education, awareness and participation), as well as monitoring, evaluation and review measures. The Action Plan is aimed at both the EU and the Member States. The relevant measures will have to be taken by 2010 and will be continued beyond. The Action Plan provides for the safeguarding of the EU’s most important habitats and species. Achieving this objective involves stepping up the Natura 2000 network (designation and management of protected areas, the coherence and connectivity of the network) by re-establishing the most endangered species and by conservation measures in the outermost regions. However, sustainable biodiversity protection requires more than Natura 2000 and action on endangered species. Accordingly, the Action Plan specifically outlines ways in which biodiversity and ecosystem services in the wider EU countryside can be conserved and restored. In particular, this involves optimising the use of available measures under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), notably to conserve high-natural-value farmland and forest.[53]
Along similar lines, the Action Plan seeks to conserve and restore biodiversity and ecosystem services in the wider EU marine environment. This involves restoring fish stocks and reducing impact on non-target species and marine habitats, in particular under the Common Fisheries Policy.[54] Reinforcing the compatibility of regional and territorial development with biodiversity in the EU is another priority objective of the Action Plan, to be achieved in particular by better local, regional and national planning, which takes more account of biodiversity (for example conducting environmental impact assessments, delivering projects funded by the Community, and creating partnerships with planners and developers). The development of a comprehensive strategy as well as specific actions, such as an early warning system, is also envisaged. In order to substantially strengthen the effectiveness of international governance for biodiversity and ecosystem services, the Action Plan suggests focusing on more effective implementation of the CBD and related agreements. The Action Plan further proposes to substantially strengthen support for biodiversity and ecosystem services in EU external assistance, through funding as well as sector and geographical programs.
National wetland policy is a key feature envisaged in the implementation of the “wise use concept” of the Ramsar Convention. However, defining, developing and implementing national policies that promote wetland conservation and management remains an elusive goal for many Contracting Parties of the Convention on Wetlands. Greece is an interesting example of international and EU law implementation in a Mediterranean EU Member State with a great number of wetlands and ecosystems of international importance.[55]
In Greece, the national legal system does not contain special instruments laying down rules for the protection of wetlands as such.[56] Whatever protection is afforded to this particular area is to be found in legislation concerned with the management of all types of water and with the conservation of nature and the management of protected areas.[57] These areas of regulation operate within the general normative framework of the Greek legal order with regard to environmental protection.[58] Greece is endowed with a very high diversity of species and habitats.[59] Nature conservation has long been legislated and a range of protected areas has been established: national parks, aesthetic forests, natural monuments, game reserves, etc. Moreover, efforts have been made to protect ecosystems and coastal areas by creating nature reserves and marine parks. Measures have also been taken to improve the institutional arrangements for the operation and management of protected areas.
Greek policy has been driven mainly by international[60] and EU environmental legislation.[61] In spite of its limited environmental administrative capacity, Greece has transposed nearly all EU environmental directives and ratified most relevant international agreements.[62] Consequently, its environmental policy and law have been very much influenced by legal developments at international and EU level.[63] To implement EU directives, Greece has benefited from considerable EU financial support. The political changes in central and Eastern Europe gave Greece new opportunities to strengthen cooperation with its neighbours and establish new links with Balkan states and others in the region; this co-operation has already had positive results concerning transboundary waters. Moreover, specific action programmes (Operational Environment Programme, environmental programmes under the Cohesion Fund, environmental actions carried out in the framework of the Regional Operational Programmes, or the Sectoral Operational Programmes) are the centrepieces of Greece’s environmental progress.
Although Greece has ratified most international agreements on biodiversity and nature conservation, nevertheless the total area under protection is small and information has been insufficient to make the public aware of which plants and animals are protected.[64] In addition, since many of the main environmental laws date from the 1970s and 1980s[65], there is a case for gradually streamlining and updating environmental legislation. Lack of enforcement has also been a major problem in policy implementation, weakening the effectiveness of environmental regulations.[66] Enforcement of national legislation is often too slow or lacking, and inspection and prosecution are impeded by a lack of staff. The setting up of an institutional co-ordination mechanism between the Ministry of Environment, Physical Planning and Public Works and the other ministries, agencies and environmental NGOs involved in nature conservation would facilitate planning and implementation, as well as enforcement.[67] Progress to date on the integration of environmental concerns into economic policies has been uneven, although the Council of State (High Court) has played a positive role in defining the content of framework environmental legislation and providing a practical interpretation of the term “sustainable development” in case law.
Wetlands have been identified as one of the key life support systems on this planet in concert with agricultural lands and forests. This has also been a key theme in the evolving global support and political commitment by most governments for sustainable development and environmental conservation. These goals are articulated in a number of conventions and policy documents, such as the Ramsar Convention’s Strategic Plan, the World Conservation Strategy, and the EU Biodiversity Action Plan. With regard to Europe, in particular, the dominant influence of EU law on Member States’ wetland protection policies seems to have pushed national objectives to the background to some extent. However, in order to extract the greatest benefit from EU initiatives and action plans and to move national environmental policies from remediation and investment to prevention and management, these initiatives need to be put at the service of a strategic perspective. A comprehensive national strategic plan for wetlands, based on a wide ranging consultation process and setting specific objectives and targets, would help achieve this and also give substance to EU Member States to build on their natural and historical heritage. Governmental decentralisation has yet to be combined with adequate local institutional capacity in the environmental field and clear responsibilities. The mechanisms of the international regime should also be promoted as a tool for integration, especially in Member States where the degree of actual implementation of national environmental legislation based on international obligations is not well known because of lack of inspection. It is submitted that a first step towards efficient protection of nature in areas of international significance would be the further implementation at national level of international legal acts, beyond what is required under EU law.
[∗] Associate. Professor, Department of International & European Studies, University of Piraeus.
[1] Inter alia, T.J. Davis (ed.), Towards the wise use of wetlands, Wise Use project, Ramsar Convention Bureau, Gland, Switzerland, 1993; C.M. Finlayson (compiler), ‘Ecological change - concept and application: Defining gaps and priorities’, in: G. Aubrect, G. Dick and C. Prentice (ed.), Monitoring of ecological change in wetlands of Middle Europe, Proceedings of an international workshop held in Linz, Austria, 26-30 October 1993, Stapfia and IWRB Special Publication 1994.
[2] See, C.S. Holling, ‘Resilience and stability of ecological systems’ [1973] Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 1; J.V. Ward and J.A. Stanford, The Ecology of Regulated Streams, Plenum Press, 1979; N.L. Poff et al., ‘The natural flow regime: a paradigm for river conservation and restoration’ [1997] 47 BioScience 769; S.L. Postel et al., ‘Allocating fresh water to aquatic ecosystems’ [1998] 23(3) Water International 119–125; J.S. Baron et al., ‘Meeting ecological and societal needs for freshwater’ [2002] 12 Ecological Applications, 1247; Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Wetlands and Water Synthesis, World Resources Institute, Island Press, 2005; J. Hobbs et al., ‘Novel ecosystems: theoretical and management aspects of the new ecological world order’ [2006] 15(1) Global Ecology and Biogeography 1.
[3] Convention on wetlands of international importance especially as waterfowl habitat, opened for signature 2 February 1971, 996 UNTS 245 (entered into force 21 December 1975).
[4] See, inter alia, P. Bridgewater, ‘A New Context for the Ramsar Convention: Wetlands in a Changing World’ [2008] 17(1) Review of European Community and International Environmental Law 100.
[5] In any case, changing the name of the treaty requires amending the treaty itself, a cumbersome process that for the time being the Contracting Parties are not considering.
[6] Ramsar Secretariat, List of Wetlands of International Importance, 19 November 2007, available at http:// ramsar.org/index_list.htm. See also idem., Strategic Framework and Guidelines for the Future Development of the List of Wetlands of International Importance of the Convention on Wetlands, Gland, 1971, available at http://ramsar.org/key_guide_list2006_e.htm.
[7] Ramsar Convention, Article 1.1.
[8] Ibid., Article 2.1.
[9] On the MedWet initiative, see analytically below.
[10] E.g. in most of EU Member States; see below.
[11] Cf. Guidelines for developing and implementing National Wetland Policies (Ramsar Resolution VII.6, 18 May 1999), available at http://ramsar.org/res/key_res_vii.06e.doc; Guidelines for reviewing laws and institutions to promote the conservation and wise use of wetlands (Ramsar Resolution VII.7, 18 May 1999), available at http://ramsar.org/res/key_res_vii.07e.doc.
[12] Cf. Addis Ababa Principles and Guidelines for the Sustainable Use of Biodiversity in Sustainable Use (Article 10) (CBD Decision VII/12, 20 February 2004), Annex II, available at http://www.cbd.int/convention/result.aspx?id=7749&kw=VII%2012&l3=COP- 07&t0=VII%2012. A Conceptual Framework for the wise use of wetlands and the maintenance of their ecological character (Ramsar Resolution Ix.1-a, 15 November 2005); Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Wetlands and Water Synthesis, World Resources Institute, Island Press, 2005; Ramsar Secretariat, Wise Use of Wetlands: A Conceptual Framework for the wise use of wetlands, Ramsar handbooks for the wise use of wetlands, 3rd edn., vol. 1, Gland, 2007, available at <http://ramsar.org/lib/lib_handbooks2006_e01.pdf. On developments following the second Strategic Plan, see P. Bridgewater, ‘A New Context for the Ramsar Convention: Wetlands in a Changing World’ [2008] 17(1) Review on European Community and International Environmental Law 100.
[13] Rio de Janeiro, 5 June 1992.
[14] Bonn, 23 June 1979.
[15] UN Convention to Combat Desertification in those Countries Experiencing Serious Drought and/or Desertification, particularly in Africa, Paris, 17 June 1994.
[16] See, in this context, Report of the World Conservation Union, Wetlands and Climate Change: exploring collaboration between the Convention on Wetlands and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, IUCN 1999, available at: www.ramsar.org/key_unfccc_bkgd.htm. See also UNFCCC, Proceedings of the the United Nations Climate Change Conference, Poznań, 1-12 December 2008 <www.unfccc.int/meetings/cop_14/items/4481.php>.
[17] E.g. Study carried out by the UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) on the feasibility of harmonizing national reporting to international agreements, especially to harmonize information management between the five global biodiversity-related treaties, i.e. Convention on Biological Diversity, Convention on Migratory Species, Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, Convention on Wetlands and World Heritage Convention (WCMC, 2000).
[18] Analytically, P. Thomas Vives (ed.), Monitoring Mediterranean Wetlands: A methodological guide, MedWet Publication, Wetlands International, ICN, Lisbon 1996.
[19] Venice, June 1996.
[20] I.e. the Greek Biotope/Wetland Centre (EKBY), Station Biologique de la Tour du Valat in France, Sede para el Estudio de los Humedales Mediterraneos (SEHUMED) in Spain, the Centro de Zonas Húmidas, Instituto de Conservaçao da Natureza (ICN) in Portugal, and the Agenzia regionale per la protezione ambientale della Toscana (ARPAT) (Italy).
[21] Resolution VII.20 of Ramsar’s COP7.
[22] Op.cit, fn. 20.
[23] I.e. West African Coastal Zone Wetlands Network (WacoWet); ChadWet; NigerWet; WSSD Type II Partnership for the conservation and sustainable use of sites of international importance for migratory waterbirds in East Asia, South East Asia and Australasia (The Partnership); Regional Strategy for the Conservation and Wise Use of High Andean Wetlands; and Regional initiative for the protection and wise use of wetlands for the Pacific Islands.
[24] I.e. the Ramsar Regional Centre for Training and Research on Wetlands in Western and Central Asia in Iran (RRC-CWA) and CREHO.
[25] Cartagena Convention, first signed in May 2000 and amended in June 2005.
[26] Barcelona Convention, first signed in February 2001 with a newly-agreed memorandum of Co-operation signed in February 2006. See UNEP/GEF/SP- MED-LME (2007) Strategic Partnership for the Mediterranean Sea Large Marine Ecosystem – Regional Component: mplementation of agreed actions for the protection of the environmental resources of the Mediterranean Sea and its coastal areas, Project Brief; UNEP-MAP RAC SPA (2007), Assessment on Mediterranean countries’ needs for legal, policy and institutional reforms to strengthen the creation and management of marine protected areas, UNEP(DEPI)/MED WG.309/Inf.5; UNEP-MAP RAC SPA (2007), Conservation and Sustainable Use of the Biological Biodiversity of Vulnerable Coastal and Marine Resources of the Mediterranean Large Marine Ecosystem (GEF Regional Project Component on Biodiversity), UNEP(DEPI)/MED WG. 309/Inf. 4
[27] Carpathian Convention signed in December 2006.
[28] Inter alia, D. Liefferink, P.H. Lowe and A.P.J. Mol, European Integration and Environmental Policy, London, Belhaven Press, 1993. Cf. Fourth Action Programme on the Environment, OJ No C 328, 7. 12. 1987, p. 1.
[29] See Article 2 of the EC Treaty.
[30] As stated in Article 174 of the EC Treaty.
[31] As amended by Directives 81/854/EEC, 85/411/EEC, 86/122/EEC, 91/244/EEC, 94/24/EC.
[32] See generally, R. Macrory (ed.), Reflections on Thirty Years of EU Environmental Law: A High Level of Protection?, Europa Law Publishing, Netherlands, 2005.
[33] Directive 92/43/EEC, analysed below.
[34] Listed in Annex I of the Directive.
[35] By virtue of Article 7 of Council Directive 92/43/EEC.
[36] See Annex III to the Directive.
[37] See Case 262/85, Commission v. Italy [1987] ECR, p. 3073; Case C-435/92, Association pour la Protection des Animaux Sauvages and others v Préfet de Maine-et-Loire and Préfet de Loire-Atlantique [1994] ECR I-67.
[38] Article 9(1)(a).
[39] Article 9(1)(b).
[40] Article 9(1)(c).
[41] See Report from the Commission on the application of Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds based on information supplied by the Member States on the application of national measures adopted pursuant to the Directive, COM(2000)180 final, point 4.
[42] See Case C-157/89, Commission v. Italy [1991] ECR I-57.
[43] Report from the Commission on the application of Directive 79/409/EEC, op.cit.
[44] Cf. European Commission, Managing Natura 2000 sites: The provisions of Article 6 of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC, available at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/nature/art6Fen.pdf.
[45] Cf. GEF/WWF MedPO/RAC/SPA-UNEP (2005), Mediterranean Strategy to Implement SAP BIO Related to Marine Protected Areas, GFL/2328-2732, GF/3010-05.
[46] W.P.J Wils, ‘La protection des habitats naturels en Droit Communautaire’ [1994] 3-4 Cahiers de Droit Communautaire; C. Lagier, ‘L’Europe et l’environment: La Directive 92/43/CEE du 21 mai 1992 sur la conservation des habitats naturels de la faune et de la flore sauvages’, Gazette du Palais, 1-2-1995, p.14.
[47] See C. Lasén Diaz, ‘The EC Habitats Directive Approaches its Tenth Anniversary: An Overview’ [2001] 10(3) Review of European Community and International Environmental Law 287-295; J. Holder and M. Lee, Environmental Protection, Law and Policy: Text and Materials, 2nd Edn., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2007, p. 665 et seq.
[48] The polluter-pays principle establishes the requirement that the costs of pollution should be borne by the person responsible for causing the pollution. The meaning of the principle and its application to particular cases and situations remains open to interpretation, particularly in relation to the nature and extent of the costs included. It is doubtful whether it has achieved the status of a generally applicable rule of customary international law, except in relation to EU Member States under acquis communautaire; see, inter alia, R. Romi, ‘Le Principe pollueur-payeur, ses implications et ses applications’ [1991] 8 Droit de l’environnement 46.
[49] Entered into force on 6 June 1982.
[50] Appendices I and II to the Convention, respectively.
[51] As specified in Appendix III to the Convention.
[52] Commission Communication, Halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010 - and beyond. Sustaining ecosystem services for human well–being, COM(2006)216, final, 22 May 2006.
[53] See also Commission Communication, Biodiversity Action Plans in the areas of Conservation of Natural Resources, Agriculture, Fisheries, and Development and Economic Co-operation, COM(2001) 162 final, 27 March 2001 (volume III). The 2001 Biodiversity Action Plan points to the need for improved links with EU Member States and international development co- operation agencies, programs and institutions in the Member States and at international level (e.g. World Bank and Global Environment Fund). It also considers the need for building up capacity to manage development and environment issues within the Commission.
[54] Ibid. (volume IV).
[55] See, generally, A. La Spina and G. Sciortino, ‘Common agenda, southern rules: European integration and environmental change in the Mediterranean states’ in J.D. Liefferink, P.H. Lowe, and A.P.J. Mol, European Integration and Environmental Policy, London, Belhaven Press, 1993, p. 217-236; G. Pridham, ‘Environmental policies and problems of European legislation in southern Europe’ [1996] 1(1) Southern European Society and Politics 47-73.
[56] Inter alia, Papagregoriou, B., Wetlands of International Interest - The Ramsar Convention and Greek Legal Order, Sakoulas Publishers, Athens 2000, p. 181 et seq.
[57] The general framework for environmental protection in Greece, and consequently for the protection of wetlands, is set in the Greek Constitution and in the framework Law 1650/1986 (Gov.Gaz. 160A/18-10-1986) on the protection of the environment, as amended by Law 3010/2002 (Gov.Gaz. 91A/25-4-2002).
[58] See Law 860/1976 regarding Planning and Environment; Presidential Decree 67/1981 for the Protection of Wild Flora and Fauna and the determination of the procedures for the co-ordination of the Management and Research on them; Law 1126/1981 for the Ratification of the Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, signed in Paris in 1972; Law 1335/1983 for the Ratification of the Convention for the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Bern Convention); Joint Ministerial Decision 69269/5387/1990 for Initial Approval of Planning and Environmental Impact Assessment Studies; Law 2204/1994 for the Ratification of the Convention for the Conservation of Bio- diversity signed in Rio de Janeiro in 1992; Law 2742/1999 regarding Land-planning Issues and Provisions for the Administration and Management of Protected Areas; Law 3017/2002 for the Ratification of the Kyoto Protocol of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change; Law 3044/2002 including the Establishment of 25 Agencies for the Management of equal Protected Areas.
[59] See Gerakis, P.A. and E. Koutrakis (eds.), Greek Wetlands, Goulandris Natural History Museum – Greek Biotope/Wetland Centre, Commercial Bank of Greece, Athens, 1996; S. Bourdakis and S. Vareltzidou, “Greece”, in M.F. Heath and M.I. Evans (eds.), Important Bird Areas in Europe: Priority Sites for Conservation: Southern Europe, BirdLife Conservation Series, 2000.
[60] The Ramsar Convention was ratified by the Legislative Decree 191/20-11-1974 and Legislative Decree 191/1974 (Gov.Gaz. 350A/20-11-1974), as amended by Law 1950/1991 (A 4); Law 2204/1994 (Gov.Gaz. 59A/15-4-1994) – Ratification of Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).
[61] Greece implemented Directive 79/409/ΕC with Joint Ministerial Decisions 414985/29-11-85 (ΦΕΚ 757/Β/18-12-85), 366599/16-12-96 (Gov.Gaz. 1188/Β/31- 12-96), 294283/23-12-97 (ΦΕΚ 68/Β/4-2-98). Directive 92/43/ΕC was also implemented in Greece with Joint Ministerial Decision 33318/3028/11-12-98 (Gov.Gaz. 1289/Β/28-12-98).
[62] Cf. OECD, Environmental Performance Reviews: Greece – Conclusions and recommendations, Paris 31 May 2000; National Centre for the Environment and Sustainable Development, Greece – The State of the Environment – A Concise Report, Athens, 2001, available at: www.ekpaa.gr/documents/NCESD-EN- State_of_the_Enviroment.pdf.
[63] See A. Jordan, R. Wurzel and A. Zito (eds.), ‘New Instruments of Environmental Governance: National Experiences and Prospects’ [2003] 12(1) Special issue of Environmental Politics 1; G. Giannakourou, ‘The implementation of EU environmental policy in Greece. Europeanisation and mechanisms of change’ in D. Dimitrakopoulos and A. Passas, Greece in the European Union, Routledge, London, 2004, p. 51-60.
[64] OECD, Environmental Performance Reviews: Greece – Conclusions and recommendations, op.cit.
[65] Cf. Law 86/1969 regarding the National Forest Policy; Law 996/1971 for the Creation of “National Parks”, “Aesthetic Parks” and “Preservable Monuments of Nature”; Law 177/1975 for the Protection and Preservation of the Natural Environment and the Conservation, Development and Exploitation of the Game Resources; Law 998/1979 for the Protection of the Forests and Woody Areas; Law 1634/1986 for the Ratification of the Protocols of 1980 for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea from Pollution from terrestrial sources and of 1989 regarding the Special Protected Areas of Mediterranean (Barcelona Convention).
[66] Ibid. Cf. European Commission, Greece: Commission pursues legal action in three cases for breach of EU environmental law, Press Release, 14 January 2005.
[67] On the protection and management of natural environment and wetlands in Greece, see Joint Ministerial Decision 66289/1993 (Gov.Gaz. 506B/9-7-1993), as extended by JMD 68246/2499/1996 (Gov.Gaz. 303B/6-5-1996) (the Kotychi Lagoon and adjacent wetlands and Strofylia forest biotopes); Joint Ministerial Decision 5796/1996 (Gov.Gaz. 854B/16-9-1996), as extended by JMD 55784/3203/1998 (Gov.Gaz. 941B/1-9-1998) (Nestos Delta, Lake Vistonida, Lake Ismarida and their wider region); Joint Ministerial Decision 8586/1838/1998 (Gov.Gaz. 376B/27-4-1998), as extended by JMD 10528/2566/2001 (Gov.Gaz. 574B/01) (Evros Delta and wider area); Joint Ministerial Decision 14874/3291/1998 (Gov.Gaz. 687B/6-7-1998) (wetlands in Alyki Kitrous, the downstream part and delta of Rivers Aliakmonas, Loudias, Axios, Gallikos, the Kalohori lagoon and their wider area); Joint Ministerial Decision 30027/1193/1990 (Gov.Gaz. 194B/23-3-1990), as extended by JMD 16611/1993 (Gov.Gaz. 158B/22-2-1993) (wetlands in Amvrakikos Bay and its wider area); Joint Ministerial Decision 125735/1282/2003 ‘Determination of number of members of the Board of the Management Body of the Messologhi Lagoon’ (Gov.Gaz. 473B/03).
AustLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MqJlICEnvLaw/2009/3.html