The remediation of nitrate and pesticide pollution from agriculture in drinking water resources has manifested itself as a complex and multifaceted challenge in Europe and in other continents. Addressing agricultural pollution in water resources requires cross-sectoral approaches. The EU Water Framework Directive aims to build bridges among these sectors, but the often sectoral implementation by Member States prevents its potential from being fully explored. This study aims to contribute to the body of interdisciplinary knowledge on the driving forces towards water quality improvement from agricultural pollution by case study research in five European countries in an interdisciplinary setting. The cases have shown that the added value of voluntary practices is considerable for creating shared ambitions but limited for actual water quality improvement. Implementation of strategies should be supported by practical guidance and monitoring of outcomes that enables compliance testing and refines simulation models for the formulation of follow-up actions. Dynamic interactions among the knowledge domains, for example, social-economic context, the legal framework, and the state of the water system, help to identify necessary actions at the different stages of the policy cycle. Especially in the implementation, monitoring, evaluation, and adaptation stage of the policy cycle, there is a need for further studies in order to improve effectiveness, for example on the role of monitoring and evaluation, licensing, and the issue of scale in cross-sectoral approaches.

The Water Framework Directive protects groundwater-dependent terrestrial ecosystems, but its concepts and definitions remain unclear. This paper aims to clarify the margin of discretion for the Member States, by applying a cross-disciplinary legal and biological analysis. We conclude that description of the protected ecosystems must include at least key components and processes and be based on a number of well-known groundwater-dependent habitats, but not restricted to habitats fed entirely by groundwater. We argue that the potential harm to terrestrial ecosystems by lowering the groundwater table should include the impact of both water abstraction and drainage, and, despite the discretion regarding scale, we recommend basing assessments and protection at a landscape-scale that aligns with the scale of bodies of groundwater, which typically includes a range of habitats in various ecological conditions.

This article highlights certain challenges as regards the reconciliation between concerns of climate change, energy security and biodiversity protection, drawing on case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the Danish experiences regarding onshore wind energy installations. The EU species protection rules are by many perceived as an obstacle to wind energy development as also reflected in the 2022 Commission proposal to amend the Renewable Energy Directive. However, it is not evident that the proposal will solve the challenges of accommodating the strict direct species protection of, in particular, Annex IV species and birds against deliberate killing or disturbance as determined by the CJEU. The article suggests that rather than setting aside the general environmental impact assessment (EIA) and appropriate assessment requirements for Natura 2000 sites, there is a need to revisit the Birds and Habitats Directives, in particular as regards ‘deliberate killing or disturbance’ caused by non-intentional activities with a view to the population level as opposed to the individual specimen level. European Union, Species protection, Biodiversity, Renewables, Wind energy

This chapter focuses on the development and use of EU competences in environmental matters. It elaborates on the choice of legal basis and the criteria laid down by the Court of Justice of the European Union. Owing to the cross-cutting nature of environmental regulation, the existence of several legal bases is discussed in view of the integration principle demonstrating how this principle broadens the scope of sectoral policies, such as agriculture and transport, to include environmental measures. Certain limitations as regards the depth of EU environmental legislation do, however, exist, e.g. as reflected in the subsidiarity principle. Furthermore, a growing tension between calls for simplification or deregulation as opposed to calls for more ambitious environmental regulation may lead to further disputes on the use of the EU environmental competence.

To address increasing opposition to wind projects in Denmark three compensation schemes were introduced in the 2008 Renewable Energy Act. The aim was to address issues of distributive fairness and thereby to increase local acceptance. This paper analyses the role of two individual compensation schemes – the property value-loss scheme and the co-ownership scheme – on local citizens’ perceptions of fair distribution of the benefits and burdens of wind energy projects. The qualitative case study of three Danish wind energy projects discloses that distributive unfairness was a prevalent concern among local citizens, and that this concern was inseparable from perceptions of procedural fairness and recognition. The key conclusion is that the two compensation schemes are not successfully offsetting perceptions of unfair distribution. The schemes are challenged by a multitude of intertwined concerns. The compensation schemes are not equipped to address the plethora of non-monetary values affected by the wind projects. Specifically the compensation schemes are criticised for not offering adequate local benefits or distribution thereof, equal access, fair procedures and transparency. In fact the schemes were by some considered unfair and created perceptions of lack of recognition and bribery which undermined their role in promoting distributive fairness and local acceptance.

This article is concerned with public participation and its linkages with appeal rights in planning decisions for major onshore wind farms in England and Denmark. We are particularly interested in how the legal framework shapes the scope of participation and appeals and, more specifically, whether a third party right to appeal (TPRA) has a participatory potential beyond the initial decision-making process. Despite structural differences, our analysis shows that in both countries the legal frameworks limit the participatory potential of administrative appeals, either through a restricted third party access to appeal mechanisms or through a restricted scope of review in appeals. Even where access is unrestricted, TPRA can hardly constitute an extension of participation, unless the scope for review is equally extended. Thus, reliance on TPRA as a participatory tool would require changes to the legal framework in both jurisdictions.

Greater production of agricultural biomass for energy generation means a greater overlap between the energy and agricultural value chains. The production of biofuels from food crops was previously criticised as conflicting with food production. Use of so-called 'marginal land' is proposed to overcome previous controversies. Using interviews and document analysis, this paper explores the meaning of 'marginal land' for non-food energy crop production in Denmark and conflicts that arose over its proposed use. In Denmark there was a different conception of marginal land - environmentally sensitive land where intensive cultivation causes impacts. Policies were put in place to promote the use of this 'environmentally marginal land'. However, competing environmental objectives for this land - for different types of biodiversity, ecosystems services and aesthetic preferences meant these policies were repealed. The paper shows how discussions of biomass production on agricultural land, and particularly marginal land, reflect the nuances of competing land uses in agriculturally intensive countries like Denmark. It is not only a matter of trade-offs between different types of agricultural production, such as food and fuel, or between environmental benefits and production, but over the optimal environmental use of the land to achieve multifunctional benefits. As well as questions of equity, access and practicality, the marginal land debate in agriculturally intensive countries needs to include questions of appropriate and desired environmental outcomes and means of stakeholder engagement to establish these.

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.

Wind farms and their associated transmission infrastructure can have negative impact on biodiversity. Offshore wind farms, for example, can pose threats to animals like harbor porpoises and migrating birds and onshore wind farms and transmission grids may harm birds and bats.In this article we analyse how European Union species protection law is transposed and applied to decision-making on wind energy projects in five member states, namely Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium and the United Kingdom. The analysis aims to understands the differences in the interpretation and application of national species protection law, point out deficiencies, and make recommendations, partly based on learning from best practices. Though transposition in national law is almost identical, implementation practice in these states varies substantially. The question in raised whether the legal regime, as currently applied, can be improved to serve the aims of a considerable increase of renewable energy sources whilst simultaneously protecting biodiversity.

The Court of Justice of the European Union's (CJEU) interpretations on the normativity of the Water Framework Directive's (WFD) environmental objectives and derogation for new, important activities clarified certain long-standing discussions on these matters in the Nordic countries. The WFD's legal narrative formally changed from a planning framework for gradual improvement of water quality in the European Union to one of legally binding character for the environmental objectives. This simultaneously increased the interest for the circumstances under which a derogation from the environmental objectives is applicable for certain new activities. Both of these matters are integrally connected to the authorization of activities under national environmental permitting legislation. This article explores how and to what extent the WFD's environmental objectives are given legal effect in national environmental permitting in Sweden, Finland and Denmark. Although the Nordic countries have chosen different approaches when implementing the WFD, they have all largely kept these legal frameworks separate; legislation establishing a system of river basin management planning pursuant to the WFD on the one hand, and environmental permitting legislation on the other. The article points out certain crucial questions on the reconciliation of these legal frameworks and the development of national legislation as triggered by the CJEU case law. Regarding the provisions implementing the possibility to derogate for new and important activities, the article discusses certain lacking and flawed legal linkages between river basin management planning and environmental permitting in the three countries.

Sustainable management of natural resources is a key concern at all levels of society, on a global as well as a local scale. Natural resources are here understood in broad terms encompassing biodiversity, water, air and soil as well as raw materials. Usually, waste is not considered a natural resource; however, in a sustainable management of natural resources, the recycling of waste as secondary raw materials is pivotal and accordingly included in the present understanding of natural resources. The fifth European Environmental Law Forum Conference in Copenhagen in late summer 2017 aimed to highlight key issues regarding legal instruments and approaches and their role in promoting sustainable management of natural resources. This book offers a selection of peer reviewed contributions presented at the conference.

Livestock production and intensive application of manure together with other fertilisers pollutes waters all over the world. In particular, careless spreading of manure on fields already rich with nutrients causes heavy loads of nutrient emissions into ground and surface waters. Livestock installations and handling of manure are often regulated through a mix of different instruments. In the EU, environmental permits are applied to regulate emissions from high volume livestock installations. However, the scope and func- tion of livestock permits remains a controversial legal and regulatory question: Should the permit cover both the livestock installation as a technical-functional unit and the spreading of manure outside the installation, or should the latter be treated as a separate issue to be regulated through other instruments, such as general legal standards? This question is further stressed by recent structural developments in agri-business sector (specialization, increased farm size, manure proces- sing technology) and political ambitions related to the circular economy. Drawing from recent experiences in Denmark and Finland, this article analyses the role of permits in regulating livestock production and man- agement of manure. It concludes that while the optimal regulatory function of permits depends on the agri-environmental "policy-mix" of each country, the evolving agri-business sector might call for evolution of the regulatory strategy: the exclusion of manure spreading from the scope of the permit.

Renewable energy projects, such as offshore and onshore wind and solar farms, including the necessary infrastructure, have an impact on biodiversity. Given the status of biodiversity across Europe, and the ambitions for the maintenance of species, limiting the impact of renewable energy generation units on biodiversity is of fundamental importance. This study offers an insight into the incorporation of species protection aspects in current permit practices, and contributes to the discussion on dealing with species protection issues in the process of upscaling sustainable energy facilities.

One of the major challenges in the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) is how to address diffuse agricultural pollution of the aquatic environment. In Denmark the implementation of agricultural measures has been fraught with difficulty in the form of delays and legal proceedings, despite an ambitious starting point. Why has the implementation of the WFD been so difficult? Based on an analysis of three core components (effectiveness, scale and legal issues) of three agricultural measures (riparian zones, reduced management of streams and catch crops), the paper argues that the legal and regulatory complexity of adopting mandatory land use related measures at the national level to achieve site-specific environmental objectives was underestimated in a top-down political process. The ambitious mandatory policy measures, which added to existing high regulation pressure, led to regulatory challenges, such as possible violation of private property rights raising questions about the actual environmental effects at local level. Consequently, political acceptability and legitimacy of the agricultural measures were undermined, resulting in a gradual withdrawal of the measures and a policy failure. It is argued that the adoption of more flexible measures to be implemented at the local level could have resulted in fewer difficulties from an economic and legal point of view as measures could have been applied where there was a clear environmental benefit, and possibly also at a lower cost.