Suchergebnisse

Denmark is a small country with a relatively high proportion of coastal land. The country relies on its coastal resources for their significant contribution to its environment and economy and has traditionally implemented strong measures to ensure their protection. These measures include not only a minimum 100 m wide coastal setback zone, but also a 3 km wide Coastal Planning Zone – the widest protection zone identified across the countries in this book. Nevertheless, since 2015, following the election of a liberal-conservative government, the country has seen a pushback against some of its most stringent coastal regulations, particularly affecting the Coastal Planning Zone, in favour of landowner interests, and a decentralisation of the coastal protection administration. This chapter provides a snapshot of Danish coastal zone regulation at this juncture.

The Nordic Environmental Law Network (NELN) was formally established in 2003 as a network funded by the former Nordic Research Academy – now the Nordic Research Board (NordForsk). However, Nordic co-operation within environmental law research and research training has existed for a number of years. Since 1992 a group of environmental lawyers have organized annual research training courses or seminars for the benefit of in particular Ph.d. students and young researchers within environmental law. These courses and seminars were also generously funded by the former Nordic Research Academy – now NordForsk.
The primary purpose of NELN is to enhance and develop Nordic environmental law research and research training through a variety of network activities. Nordic environmental law researchers are – as in many other countries – often spread among several universities and institutions. The network activities thus serve the purpose of promoting contacts and exchange of experience among environmental law researchers and others dealing with environmental law issues. Previous network activities have led to co-operation in the form of research projects and book projects involving also researchers outside the Nordic countries.

This article provides a comparative analysis of the regulation of ammonia emissions, primarily from livestock installations, in Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands. It discusses the challenges of regulating agricultural ammonia emissions in view of the rulings of the Court of Justice of the European Union (cjeu) on Art. 6(3) of the Habitats Directive. It is argued that the need to ensure certainty concerning the absence of significant effects on Natura 2000 sites is challenged by the uncertainties regarding both the state of individual habitat types and the potential impact of individual projects. A more integrated or programmatic approach may provide an alternative approach to individual assessments, but it is necessary to ensure that additional loads from new or enlarged livestock installations are permitted in areas with high ammonia loads only where it is certain that a programmatic approach will ensure that there are no harmful effects. This might be an almost impossible task.

A 'burden reducing' agenda has spurred an increased interest in how EU environmental legislation is transposed into national legislation—most prominently reflected in the principle of 'no gold-plating'. Yet, an important question is to what extent transposition principles and practices may ensure a coherent and accessible body of environmental legislation, while at the same time ensuring adequate transposition of EU environmental legislation. This article analyses the existence, or emergence, of transposition principles and practices in three Member States—the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Denmark. It also examines how EU initiatives may influence these principles and practices. The article concludes that the steering of transposition processes by general transposition principles and objectives alone, and in particular those dominated by a 'burden reducing' agenda, has a limited focus on coherence and accessibility with respect to environmental legislation and that such issues deserve more attention in the transposition process.

This article provides a comparative analysis of the regulation of ammonia emissions, primarily from livestock installations, in Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands. It discusses the challenges of regulating agricultural ammonia emissions in view of the rulings of the Court of Justice of the European Union (cjeu) on Art. 6(3) of the Habitats Directive. It is argued that the need to ensure certainty concerning the absence of significant effects on Natura 2000 sites is challenged by the uncertainties regarding both the state of individual habitat types and the potential impact of individual projects. A more integrated or programmatic approach may provide an alternative approach to individual assessments, but it is necessary to ensure that additional loads from new or enlarged livestock installations are permitted in areas with high ammonia loads only where it is certain that a programmatic approach will ensure that there are no harmful effects. This might be an almost impossible task. ; This article provides a comparative analysis of the regulation of ammonia emissions, primarily from livestock installations, in Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands. It discusses the challenges of regulating agricultural ammonia emissions in view of the rulings of the Court of Justice of the European Union (cjeu) on Art. 6(3) of the Habitats Directive. It is argued that the need to ensure certainty concerning the absence of significant effects on Natura 2000 sites is challenged by the uncertainties regarding both the state of individual habitat types and the potential impact of individual projects. A more integrated or programmatic approach may provide an alternative approach to individual assessments, but it is necessary to ensure that additional loads from new or enlarged livestock installations are permitted in areas with high ammonia loads only where it is certain that a programmatic approach will ensure that there are no harmful effects. This might be an almost impossible task.

This article analyses how the use of antifouling paints for leisure boats is regulated in Denmark, Finland and Sweden. All three countries appear to apply a somewhat fragmented approach to the different matters related to antifouling paints, including environmental quality (e.g. water quality), chemical products (e.g. authorisations or restrictions) and waste handling. The legislation related to antifouling paints and practices addresses a range of different actors and has varying legal implications on different regulatory levels. The most central actor as to the contamination by antifouling substances is the boat owner using antifouling paints and the context in which this activity normally occurs, i.e. the leisure boat marina or boat club. In the three jurisdictions analysed, environmental quality regulation appears unable to directly oblige either the boat owner or the marina to take sufficient measures and conduct. Environmental protection regulation, including waste legislation, generally excludes smaller leisure boat marinas and boat clubs from permitting and waste management requirements. In product regulation, the authorisation and/or restriction rules of antifouling paints (biocides) function as sort of an 'advance supervision' of chemical safety requirements, e.g. based on leaching rates. But when it comes to actual application of paint on the boat hull, compliance with product instructions/limitations is generally not supervised – presumably due to a lack of resources. Furthermore, environmental requirements for the maintenance of boats are often based on local regulations. From a perspective of compliance and enforcement, further direct regulation of marinas and boat owners on the basis of general environmental protection law, may not constitute the 'silver bullet' to sufficient environmental protection. Another option could be to encourage private law arrangements and "self- enforcement" by e.g. the marinas or boat owner associations. ; This article analyses how the use of antifouling paints for leisure boats is regulated in Denmark, Finland and Sweden. All three countries appear to apply a somewhat fragmented approach to the different matters related to antifouling paints, including environmental quality (e.g. water quality), chemical products (e.g. authorisations or restrictions) and waste handling. The legislation related to antifouling paints and practices addresses a range of different actors and has varying legal implications on different regulatory levels. The most central actor as to the contamination by antifouling substances is the boat owner using antifouling paints and the context in which this activity normally occurs, i.e. the leisure boat marina or boat club. In the three jurisdictions analysed, environmental quality regulation appears unable to directly oblige either the boat owner or the marina to take sufficient measures and conduct. Environmental protection regulation, including waste legislation, generally excludes smaller leisure boat marinas and boat clubs from permitting and waste management requirements. In product regulation, the authorisation and/or restriction rules of antifouling paints (biocides) function as sort of an 'advance supervision' of chemical safety requirements, e.g. based on leaching rates. But when it comes to actual application of paint on the boat hull, compliance with product instructions/limitations is generally not supervised – presumably due to a lack of resources. Furthermore, environmental requirements for the maintenance of boats are often based on local regulations. From a perspective of compliance and enforcement, further direct regulation of marinas and boat owners on the basis of general environmental protection law, may not constitute the 'silver bullet' to sufficient environmental protection. Another option could be to encourage private law arrangements and "self- enforcement" by e.g. the marinas or boat owner associations.