![Sample our Geography journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5937/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Geography.jpg"})
Abstract
In the process of implementing EU policy, Member States sometimes introduce new policy instruments in cases where this is not obligatory. To better understand this phenomenon, this paper reviews three cases in which new instruments emerged and develops a methodology to trace back the influence of EU Directives on instrument choice. The method is illustrated by a narrative of the emergence of new management planning instruments during the implementation of the EU Habitats Directive in three EU Member States: Finland, Hungary and the Netherlands. Three key features of a policy instrument are defined, namely, its authoritative force, action content and governance design. These are used to measure the contribution of the Habitats Directive compared to other potential explanatory causes for the emergence of the new policy instrument. In all three reviewed countries a nested causal relationship between the Habitats Directive and the introduction of the new policy instrument is identified. Based on the relative contribution of the Habitats Directive to the emergence of the new instrument a distinction is made whether the Directive acted as a cause, catalyst or if conjunction occurred.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank all those in the Netherlands, Hungary and Finland who were kind enough to spare the time for an interview. In particular, we would like to thank András Schmidt and Mervi Heinonen who commented on the draft version of this paper. This research was partly supported by the strategic research programme KBIV (KB-14) “Sustainable spatial development of ecosystems, landscapes, seas and regions” which is funded by the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Notes
1. The following countries introduced new management planning instruments. Members prior to 1992: the Netherlands, France, Denmark, Ireland, Greece.
Member after 1992: Finland, Sweden, Czech Republic, Lithuania, Hungary, Poland.
2. Habitat types and species for which sites need to be designated are listed in Annex I and II.
3. Since 2014, this plan can also be a Natura 2000 Site Condition Assessment.
4. The formal rules for management of conservation areas vary, depending on the Act establishing the area. Although at least 5 Acts stipulate the rules, only the Nature Conservation Act was revised in the reviewed period, this section limits itself to discussing this revision.
5. Finnish Ministerial Official, 2013.
6. Hungarian Ministerial Official, 2013.
7. IPO, VNG, VNO-NVW, MKB, State Forest Service, Vogelbescherming, Natuurmonumenten and Stichting Natuur en Milieu.
8. The facultative system was maintained for the 64 conservation areas (3422 hectares) Broekmeijer M E A, Bijlsma R J, Nieuwenhuizen W, Citation2011, “Beschermde natuurmonumenten: stand van zaken en toekomstige bescherming” (Alterra, Wageningen).
9. Statements made during parliamentary debate in 2004 (https://www.overheid.nl/).