Habitat Restoration on Private Lands in the United States and the EU:<br>Moving from Contestation to Collaboration?
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18352/ulr.311Keywords:
Habitats Directive, Endangered Species Act, habitat restoration, Safe Harbor Agreement, temporary nature, species managementAbstract
Current nature conservation laws, which are still mainly based on a traditional ‘command and control approach’, are falling short in delivering the much-anticipated rebound for many of the imperilled species, on both sides of the Atlantic. The reasons that the recovery targets are not being reached are diverse and manifold, ranging from poor enforcement to lack of additional funding. However, one of the causes is the inability of conservation law to involve private landowners in the attempts to save the most endangered and threatened species. In the US new policy tools have been created offering promising alternatives to the traditional ‘command and control approach’ towards nature conservation. The Safe Harbor Agreement, arguably one of the most novel instruments of the past decades in nature conservation, is the main theme of this paper. This newly coined concept offers some interesting prospects for restoration efforts on privately owned plots of land. In return for restoring natural habitats of endangered species, the landowner is provided with a so-called ‘safe harbor guarantee’, ensuring them that no additional conservation measures will be required if the number of listed species increases as a result of the landowner’s actions. Knowing that in some EU Member States a similar policy tool has emerged, which specifically aims at fostering so-called ‘temporary nature’ on lands which are currently lying unused, merely awaiting their residential, infrastructural or industrial purpose, this paper will analyse to what extent such novel regulatory instruments fit in with the requirements of the existing nature conservation laws. By focusing on the parallel developments of both tools in a changing regulatory context, this paper endeavours to outline their main strengths and weaknesses. Although they are not a panacea for all ills, this paper concludes that, if applied with caution and with some insight into the ecological conditions of the sites at hand, these instruments might provide for additional restoration opportunities to avert the loss of our most endangered species.Downloads
Published
2015-01-30
Issue
Section
Articles
License
Copyright (c) 2015 The Author(s)

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:- Authors retain copyright and grant Utrecht Law Review right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in the Utrecht Law Review.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in Utrecht Law Review.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
Once accepted for publication, the final version of the paper must be provided. A completed and signed copyright form, which will be sent by the Managing Editor, must accompany each paper. By signing the form the author states to accept the copyright notice of Utrecht Law Review. The copyright notice for authors is also included in the copyright acceptance form.