Directive A Driver Sustainable Development -Myassignmenthelp.Com

Question: Discuss About The Directive A Driver Sustainable Development? Answer: Introduction: European Union Habitat directive is intended to ensure the protection of large range of rare, threatened animal and plant types. About 200 rare and habitat characteristics actually targeted for their own conservation. In the year 1992, The council directive 92/43EEC of 21 May 1992 was issued on the protection and preservation of natural habitats as well as the flora and fauna. The intention of the directive is to upkeep the biodiversity in the region, while taking into account the diverse socio, economic and cultural reasons, the framework provided and the subsequent processing has resulted in the formation of the foundation for the development of the Europes nature conservation policy with all the necessary implications to the Birds directive and establishes the EU wide Natura2000 ecological network of the protected areas. The purpose of the same is to safeguard the target elements from the potentially damaging environmental influences. As a whole about 1000 plant species and about 200 habitats mentioned in the directives are protected by this directive. Article 6(4) of the directive is intended to take up all the necessary compensatory measures needed to ensure the overall coherence of Natura 2000. Infact the article take care of overriding the public interest including those of a social or economic nature, for the sake of enabling the member state to take all the required actions to keep up the overall integrity of Natura 2000. Member state, through article 6(4) is requested to inform the committee about the compensatory measures taken in this direction. Normally there will be two phase process while doing the implementation of the necessary protection mechanism of the bio-diversity initiatives. At the first phase of the process, the procedures consist of weighing the alternative solutions which do have the necessary potential to safeguard the integrity of the site under question. It need to be done as per Article 6(3). Numerous alternative solutions can be developed in this direction. Typical alternative solutions in this direction can be development of the alternative locations, which may include provision of alternative routes for the said operational requirements. It may also include provision of different scales for the operational requirements. Further making up improved designs and developments as well as the alternative processes all fall in this category of provisions of the directive. It is also possible to consider the zero-option as well for the current case. If incase there are no such alternative solutions existing for keeping up the integrity of the site, then the alternative measures for the sake of overriding the public interests will be taken care of. Principles of subsidiarity will be followed in this phase of comparison of alternatives where in the ecological conditions will be taken for the sake of maintenance of the integrity of the site and its ecological functions will be given primary significance and the econo mic criteria will be taken for overruling the ecological considerations. If there are no any alternative solutions then the imperative causes for overriding the public interest will be considered in balancing the site integrity. In this connection the article 6(4) emphasizes the need for the overriding of public interests, specifically they will be considered in the framework of the policies and procedures aimed at the protection of the fundamental values of the citizens lives. Further they will also be inline with the framework of the state and society framework. The following part of the discussion will discuss in more detail about the overview of the article, the implementing process of the same. Further the consequences of the implementing the article is discussed in more detail (Barnard, 2017). Literature Review: If incase the implications of the site in the absence of the alternative solutions, a plan or project must nevertheless should be carried out if incase it is involving the imperative reasons for the sake of overriding public interests. These causes can be both social as well as economic in nature. It is also needed that the member states in this context is required to take up all the necessary compensatory measures to ensure the overall coherence of Natura 2000 is maintained intact and protected. If the site is holding the priority habitat type and/or a priority species types then the only considerations that needs to be considered for is those that are related to the human healthcare as well as the public safety. To the beneficial consequences of the primary importance for the environment. Even the opinion from the commission for other imperative reasons of overriding public interest does matter. The first step in keeping up the overall coherence of Natura 2000 is to develop the compensatory measures proposed for a project and they should address in comparable proportions the habitats and species negatively affected(Krenova,2015,P.270). The member state is required to take up the concern of the bio-geographical region under emphasis. Further it should provide all the necessary functions comparable to those which have justified the selection criteria of the original site. The distance between the original site and the place of the compensatory measures and other factors normally will not impact the selection as long as the alternative is meeting the original requirements of the site. The compensatory authority in accordance with the instructions of the article 6(4) will take up all these necessary focus on these aspects and this inturn will provide the necessary objective meet-up. Within the directives discussed for the implementation of the article 6(4), it is very clearly me ntioned about the cost of the compensatory measures and the role of agencies in taking up these costs. It is discussed that the compensatory agency needs to take care of the cost of the compensatory works. Further there are also provisions mentioned in the form of the subsidy or alternatively called as state aid for the sake supporting the fraction of the total cost of the compensatory measures by the compensatory agencies (Maes, 2004, P.76). Priority habitats and species: Sites holding priority habitats and species are considered for special treatment in accordance with the article 6(4). There are several provisions and details included in the second part of the article 6(4), regarding the priority habitat and species presence in the sites. Some of the details included are the details of the sites that species and the selection of the same Also there is information for interpretation of the preferences and priorities as well. Further there is also detailing of the sites and the impact of the factors that are affecting the sites significantly as well as insignificantly. However public safety aspects will finally judge and justify the measures taken in this direction. There are instances in the previous occasions that the court directives regarding the minimization of the SPA areas in the context of the necessity and more priority objectives of consideration to the public safety when compared with the objectives of the ecological considerations make up the primary concerns in formulating the directives. An example of this case is C-57/89, commission Vs Germany, where in the court supported the formation of the Leybucht Dykes with the consideration and the priority assigned to the need for controlling the floods and more serious consequences foreseen with the current condition of dykes and they are considered more serious than the ecological objective of the study. The proof for the existence of the above mentioned overriding public interests and the consideration of the project and the role of that in fulfilling the public interests is mandatory in this context. The more significant role of the commission in this context contains formulating the compensatory action mechanisms, where in the balance between the ecological concerns and the values impacted will be considered against the invoked reasons and finally the worth of the compensatory measures will be estimated in this context. There are also provisions for the commission to initiate the legal actions if in case the actions are not bound in accordance with the community laws (McLeod, 2005). Scope: Article 6(4) in its entirety is providing the exceptions to the article 6(3) where in authorizations are actually provided only to those instances (projects) whose enactment will not actually impact the ecological conditions or the balances. This general rule is provided with exceptions and the integrity of the site can be given secondary preferences in the contexts recognized by the article 6(4), i.e., in the context of the imperative reasons for the sake of public interest overriding requirements. In any case the concrete application of all the detailed steps of implementation need to be performed accurately in the same sequence as indicated by the Article 6(4) in the Habitats directive(Morris,2007,P.125). Implementation phases and the procedures of the Article 6(4): Article 6(4) provisions will come into scrutiny and action only if the provisions of the article 6(3) are tested against the site and if there are any negative consequences are seen by the implementation of the article 6(3). If there are no negative implications of the project to the ecological status-quo, article 6(4) will not come into the focus. If there are any negative implications seen, the alternative solutions to be investigated and the possible negative consequences of implementing the alternative solutions need to be focussed on. Once the alternative solutions are assessed of their possible viabily and the consequences, Article 6(4) will work on to endorse the alternative plan only if the said plan will cause the minimum amount of damage to the site as well there are no other options to the preservation of the site apart from the said alternative plans devised. Further there are several key for the sake of overriding public interests in this case, which may include in them the social and economic causes as well. (Morris, 2011, P.360). If there are no any alternative solutions available for the said case of eco-preservation requirements, and if the underlying imperative reasons of overriding public interests are actually considered for, then the article 6(4) will work on to approve the same with the provision of compensatory measures. However all the compensatory measures will be allowed for only if the underlying mitigation procedures are not possible. Once if the compensatory measures are explained and the possible scope for the enactment of the same is described there is need for the communication of the same to the commission as part of the implementation procedure. The final objective is to keep up the spirit and coherence of Natura 2000 in totality. Consequences of implementing Article 6(4) of the Habitat directive: After implementation of the article 6(4) for further strengthening and stretching the scope of habitat directive the consequences of the implementation became more impactive and effective. As of now Natura 2000 has evolved as the marketing and the largest network of the habitats in the global scenario. The habitat included the largest collection of the habitat and the species in global spectrum. Implementation of the directive is actually facing certain complications as well. At the outset though there are recognition of several sites that fall within the purview and direction of the Habitat Directives the actual recognition of the same by the member states has been delayed. Further the implementation of the actual directives in all its entirety need effective information processing and the actual management of these habitats are not happening in proper manner and hence the implementation of the habitat directives is not happening in the right manner. There are several occasions whic h escalated the situation to the legal actions. Legal appeal and escalation of the situation to the legal actions has actually occurred due to variety of reasons, some of the reasons like actual unavailability of the clarification of some of the provisions in the directives. Certain reasons like unavailability of accurate and concrete definition of the terms in the directive like imperative reasons of overriding public interests actually impacted the functioning of the habitat directive. In several occasions the commission happened to initiate the infringement proceedings as a consequence of the failure of compliances at the outset (McLeod, 2005). Conclusion As such the habitat directive purpose and the procedure developed for the cause is appreciable and the benefits of the implementation are also several. There are number of instances where in the actual Natura 2000 evolved to integrate the largest collection of the sites and the natural habitat in EU under this umbrella of protection. However still as they are lot of loop holes and gaps in the system developed by habitat directive, there is need for the continuous clarification of the system. The directives mentioned in the directive need to be clarified in entirety and the chances of reducing the confusion and the legal complications need to be prevented. CJ need to take up more appropriate stand and initiative to clarify the confusions and should take up the necessary role in making the clarifications and the interpretation of the information in the most appropriate manner. Further there is need for developing the system more appropriately by enabling much more widening of the bio-d iversity strategy. More improved, monitoring, reporting and knowledge sharing and awareness build-up procedures need to be improved in the due course of action. As of now there is observation that the funding for the monitoring, surveillance and process observation procedures is not upto the requirements and there is ample need to improve the funding for the same. Once if the funding is increased as well if the procedures are implemented to integrate the system with the EU policies, System will support well the strategy and more comprehensive implementation and management of the habitat directives can be done. Also in accordance with the increase in the habitat and species under protection with time as well in accordance with the environmental complications increasing with time, there is need for the development of a more comprehensive and dynamic ecological framework for the sake of taking care of the habitat directives and the objectives. There is need for the chronical inspection of the existing procedures and the policies and the system is required to undergo renovation for every few years and such procedures are expected to provide with a comprehensive framework to meet the objectives of the system and inturn they will work for the development of a more robust system. Compensatory measures and the compensatory systems can be made wider and the council of the commission as well as the member states can be made part of the team that is looking into these aspects of approval. Hence more clarity on the actions and more clarity on the directives will enable betterment of the procedural implementation and in long run the ecological protection can be done with more precision. All the implementation related barriers like clarification of the social and economical considerations etc need to be well defined and this inturn will make the process more robust and habitat directives can be well implemented in the course of time. References: Barnard, C. and Peers, S. eds., 2017.European union law. Oxford University Press. K?enov, Z. and Kindlmann, P., 2015. Natura 2000Solution for Eastern Europe or just a good start? The umava National Park as a test case.Biological Conservation,186, pp.268-275. Maes, F. and Neumann, F., 2004. The Habitats Directive and port Business development in coastal zones: Experiences in safeguarding biodiversity.Journal of Coastal Conservation,10(1), pp.73-80. McLeod, C.R., Yeo, M., Brown, A.E., Burn, A.J., Hopkins, J.J. and Way, S.F., 2005. The Habitats Directive: selection of special areas of conservation in the UK.Peterborough, Joint Nature Conservation Committee. JNCC official website (www. jncc. gov. uk/SACselection, 23/09/09). Morris, R.K. and Barham, P., 2007. The Habitats Directive as a driver for sustainable development in the coastal zone: The example of the Humber estuary.Sustainable Development Research Advances, pp.109-138. Morris, R.K., 2011. The application of the Habitats Directive in the UK: Compliance or gold plating?.Land Use Policy, financial, pp.361-369. McLeod, C.R., Yeo, M., Brown, A.E., Burn, A.J., Hopkins, J.J. and Way, S.F., 2005. The Habitats Directive: selection of special areas of conservation in the UK.Peterborough, Joint Nature Conservation Committee. JNCC official website (www. jncc. gov. up/SACselection,