Non-Regression Clauses in Times of Ecological Restoration Law: Article 6(2) of the EU Habitats Directive as an unusual ally to restore Natura 2000?. Schoukens, H. Utrecht Law Review, 13(1):124 – 154, Igitur, Utrecht Publishing and Archiving Services, 2017. Cited by: 6; All Open Access, Gold Open Access, Green Open Access![Non-Regression Clauses in Times of Ecological Restoration Law: Article 6(2) of the EU Habitats Directive as an unusual ally to restore Natura 2000? [link]](https://bibbase.org/img/filetypes/link.svg "link")
Paper doi abstract bibtex In the European Union, as in other parts of the world,1 biodiversity is suffering a major decline, both as to quality and as to numbers. The 2015 State of Nature in the EU report, which represents the most comprehensive European overview of the conservation status and trends of the habitats and species covered by the European Union’s Habitats2 and Birds Directives3 (EU Nature Directives), revealed that nearly 77% of the protected habitats and 60% of protected species are currently in an unfavourable conservation status.4 Even though it has been generally accepted that preservation of the remaining biodiversity is key to halt further biodiversity loss,5 the concept of ecological restoration has recently risen to the fore in international and regional biodiversity policies as a newly coined tool aimed at intentionally recovering degraded ecosystems.6 The term was defined by the Society for Ecological Restoration in its 2004 Primer as the practice of ‘assisting the recovery of an ecosystem that has been degraded, damaged or restored’.7 In spite of the lack of a fixed and well-established definition in the existing regulatory framework,8 it is generally accepted that ecological restoration entails both passive measures, such as restrictions aimed at removing current disturbances or capping existing human pressures (e.g. banning grazing in certain areas in order to allow grassland to recover, or eradicating invasive species) and active measures, aimed at deliberately shifting an impacted ecosystem towards improved health and integrity (e.g. reintroducing large carnivores, re-establishing natural hydrology, or recreating native plant communities).9 © 2017. Utrecht Law Review. All Rights Reserved
@ARTICLE{Schoukens2017124,
author = {Schoukens, Hendrik},
title = {Non-Regression Clauses in Times of Ecological Restoration Law: Article 6(2) of the EU Habitats Directive as an unusual ally to restore Natura 2000?},
year = {2017},
journal = {Utrecht Law Review},
volume = {13},
number = {1},
pages = {124 – 154},
doi = {10.18352/ULR.382},
url = {https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85061795798&doi=10.18352%2fULR.382&partnerID=40&md5=3fac57b2a7fbc59274e80a7d8a50de8b},
affiliations = {Department of Public International Law, Ghent University, Belgium},
abstract = {In the European Union, as in other parts of the world,1 biodiversity is suffering a major decline, both as to quality and as to numbers. The 2015 State of Nature in the EU report, which represents the most comprehensive European overview of the conservation status and trends of the habitats and species covered by the European Union’s Habitats2 and Birds Directives3 (EU Nature Directives), revealed that nearly 77% of the protected habitats and 60% of protected species are currently in an unfavourable conservation status.4 Even though it has been generally accepted that preservation of the remaining biodiversity is key to halt further biodiversity loss,5 the concept of ecological restoration has recently risen to the fore in international and regional biodiversity policies as a newly coined tool aimed at intentionally recovering degraded ecosystems.6 The term was defined by the Society for Ecological Restoration in its 2004 Primer as the practice of ‘assisting the recovery of an ecosystem that has been degraded, damaged or restored’.7 In spite of the lack of a fixed and well-established definition in the existing regulatory framework,8 it is generally accepted that ecological restoration entails both passive measures, such as restrictions aimed at removing current disturbances or capping existing human pressures (e.g. banning grazing in certain areas in order to allow grassland to recover, or eradicating invasive species) and active measures, aimed at deliberately shifting an impacted ecosystem towards improved health and integrity (e.g. reintroducing large carnivores, re-establishing natural hydrology, or recreating native plant communities).9 © 2017. Utrecht Law Review. All Rights Reserved},
correspondence_address = {H. Schoukens; Department of Public International Law, Ghent University, Belgium; email: hendrik.schoukens@ugent.be},
publisher = {Igitur, Utrecht Publishing and Archiving Services},
issn = {1871515X},
language = {English},
abbrev_source_title = {Utrecht Law Rev.},
type = {Article},
publication_stage = {Final},
source = {Scopus},
note = {Cited by: 6; All Open Access, Gold Open Access, Green Open Access}
}
Downloads: 0
{"_id":"9e3EbewDYn9YjDeEf","bibbaseid":"schoukens-nonregressionclausesintimesofecologicalrestorationlawarticle62oftheeuhabitatsdirectiveasanunusualallytorestorenatura2000-2017","author_short":["Schoukens, H."],"bibdata":{"bibtype":"article","type":"Article","author":[{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Schoukens"],"firstnames":["Hendrik"],"suffixes":[]}],"title":"Non-Regression Clauses in Times of Ecological Restoration Law: Article 6(2) of the EU Habitats Directive as an unusual ally to restore Natura 2000?","year":"2017","journal":"Utrecht Law Review","volume":"13","number":"1","pages":"124 – 154","doi":"10.18352/ULR.382","url":"https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85061795798&doi=10.18352%2fULR.382&partnerID=40&md5=3fac57b2a7fbc59274e80a7d8a50de8b","affiliations":"Department of Public International Law, Ghent University, Belgium","abstract":"In the European Union, as in other parts of the world,1 biodiversity is suffering a major decline, both as to quality and as to numbers. The 2015 State of Nature in the EU report, which represents the most comprehensive European overview of the conservation status and trends of the habitats and species covered by the European Union’s Habitats2 and Birds Directives3 (EU Nature Directives), revealed that nearly 77% of the protected habitats and 60% of protected species are currently in an unfavourable conservation status.4 Even though it has been generally accepted that preservation of the remaining biodiversity is key to halt further biodiversity loss,5 the concept of ecological restoration has recently risen to the fore in international and regional biodiversity policies as a newly coined tool aimed at intentionally recovering degraded ecosystems.6 The term was defined by the Society for Ecological Restoration in its 2004 Primer as the practice of ‘assisting the recovery of an ecosystem that has been degraded, damaged or restored’.7 In spite of the lack of a fixed and well-established definition in the existing regulatory framework,8 it is generally accepted that ecological restoration entails both passive measures, such as restrictions aimed at removing current disturbances or capping existing human pressures (e.g. banning grazing in certain areas in order to allow grassland to recover, or eradicating invasive species) and active measures, aimed at deliberately shifting an impacted ecosystem towards improved health and integrity (e.g. reintroducing large carnivores, re-establishing natural hydrology, or recreating native plant communities).9 © 2017. Utrecht Law Review. All Rights Reserved","correspondence_address":"H. Schoukens; Department of Public International Law, Ghent University, Belgium; email: hendrik.schoukens@ugent.be","publisher":"Igitur, Utrecht Publishing and Archiving Services","issn":"1871515X","language":"English","abbrev_source_title":"Utrecht Law Rev.","publication_stage":"Final","source":"Scopus","note":"Cited by: 6; All Open Access, Gold Open Access, Green Open Access","bibtex":"@ARTICLE{Schoukens2017124,\n\tauthor = {Schoukens, Hendrik},\n\ttitle = {Non-Regression Clauses in Times of Ecological Restoration Law: Article 6(2) of the EU Habitats Directive as an unusual ally to restore Natura 2000?},\n\tyear = {2017},\n\tjournal = {Utrecht Law Review},\n\tvolume = {13},\n\tnumber = {1},\n\tpages = {124 – 154},\n\tdoi = {10.18352/ULR.382},\n\turl = {https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85061795798&doi=10.18352%2fULR.382&partnerID=40&md5=3fac57b2a7fbc59274e80a7d8a50de8b},\n\taffiliations = {Department of Public International Law, Ghent University, Belgium},\n\tabstract = {In the European Union, as in other parts of the world,1 biodiversity is suffering a major decline, both as to quality and as to numbers. The 2015 State of Nature in the EU report, which represents the most comprehensive European overview of the conservation status and trends of the habitats and species covered by the European Union’s Habitats2 and Birds Directives3 (EU Nature Directives), revealed that nearly 77% of the protected habitats and 60% of protected species are currently in an unfavourable conservation status.4 Even though it has been generally accepted that preservation of the remaining biodiversity is key to halt further biodiversity loss,5 the concept of ecological restoration has recently risen to the fore in international and regional biodiversity policies as a newly coined tool aimed at intentionally recovering degraded ecosystems.6 The term was defined by the Society for Ecological Restoration in its 2004 Primer as the practice of ‘assisting the recovery of an ecosystem that has been degraded, damaged or restored’.7 In spite of the lack of a fixed and well-established definition in the existing regulatory framework,8 it is generally accepted that ecological restoration entails both passive measures, such as restrictions aimed at removing current disturbances or capping existing human pressures (e.g. banning grazing in certain areas in order to allow grassland to recover, or eradicating invasive species) and active measures, aimed at deliberately shifting an impacted ecosystem towards improved health and integrity (e.g. reintroducing large carnivores, re-establishing natural hydrology, or recreating native plant communities).9 © 2017. Utrecht Law Review. All Rights Reserved},\n\tcorrespondence_address = {H. Schoukens; Department of Public International Law, Ghent University, Belgium; email: hendrik.schoukens@ugent.be},\n\tpublisher = {Igitur, Utrecht Publishing and Archiving Services},\n\tissn = {1871515X},\n\tlanguage = {English},\n\tabbrev_source_title = {Utrecht Law Rev.},\n\ttype = {Article},\n\tpublication_stage = {Final},\n\tsource = {Scopus},\n\tnote = {Cited by: 6; All Open Access, Gold Open Access, Green Open Access}\n}\n\n","author_short":["Schoukens, H."],"bibbaseid":"schoukens-nonregressionclausesintimesofecologicalrestorationlawarticle62oftheeuhabitatsdirectiveasanunusualallytorestorenatura2000-2017","role":"author","urls":{"Paper":"https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85061795798&doi=10.18352%2fULR.382&partnerID=40&md5=3fac57b2a7fbc59274e80a7d8a50de8b"},"metadata":{"authorlinks":{}}},"bibtype":"article","biburl":"https://bibbase.org/f/akvPCQYE74MCSypqX/scopus natura 2000.bib","dataSources":["jEMMcdj2v9At9Q5md"],"keywords":[],"search_terms":["non","regression","clauses","times","ecological","restoration","law","article","habitats","directive","unusual","ally","restore","natura","2000","schoukens"],"title":"Non-Regression Clauses in Times of Ecological Restoration Law: Article 6(2) of the EU Habitats Directive as an unusual ally to restore Natura 2000?","year":2017}