Archives par mot-clé : Niveau élevé de protection

Conference report: What’s in the Common Agricultural Policy for the Environment? Legal levers and obstacles for sustainable agriculture

Par Marie-Sophie De Clippele et Norman Vander Putten

Les bonnes feuilles du CEDRE

On 16th May 2024, the CEDRE and the IEE hosted a conference titled “What’s in the Common Agricultural Policy for the Environment? Legal levers and obstacles for sustainable agriculture”.

In recent decades, the intricate relationship between agriculture and the environment has gained significant attention due to pressing challenges such as climate change, biodiversity loss, and health-related issues. While specific environmental laws within the sector exist, the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) stands out as a pivotal spending instrument, wielding an approximate budget of 55 billion EUR per year. Although the CAP integrates environmental conditions and funds eco-friendly practices, criticism abounds regarding its encouragement of unsustainable agriculture and its failure to achieve intended greening goals. At the same time, the recent farmers’ protests have shown to what extent the administrative and financial burden of environmental regulations may cause some of them to put them in questions.

Surprisingly, the CAP regulations and their practical application remain vastly understudied by legal scholars. The conference therefore investigated how the CAP offers levers and/or constitutes an obstacle to environmental laws and objectives.

The morning sessions aimed at unpacking the environmental aspects of the CAP. Pr. Nicolas de Sadeleer, shared his work on the shift in the CAP’s approach to environmental issues, pointing out both advancements and p gaps. Emmanuel Petel, Policy officer at the European Commission’s (DG agriculture and rural development) presented the latest reforms and the political vision behind it.

In short, from a legal point of view, the CAP is a shared management fund, meaning that the Union sets the basic policy parameters, such as the objectives of the CAP and its essential requirements, while Member States bear greater responsibility as to how they meet those objectives and achieve targets. Under Article 39 TFEU, the CAP has primarily non-environmental objectives: it should aim to increase productivity, ensure a fair standard of living in the sector, to stabilise markets and assure food supply at reasonable prices. However, in light of the necessity to integrate environmental protection requirements “into the definition and implementation of the Union’s policies and activities” (Article 11 TFEU), it has for long been admitted by the ECJ that the CAP may also pursue additional environmental objectives (see for instance case 336/00, § 33).

The 2023-2027 CAP pursues ten objectives. Three of them directly concern the environment : contribution to climate change mitigation and adaptation, efficient natural resources management and halting and reversing biodiversity  loss (see Article 6 (1) and (2) of Regulation 2021/2115).

In a nutshell, the greening of the CAP happens in three main ways. First, Member States should set up systems of eco-conditionalities, i.e. sets of conditions related to health, biodiversity, animal welfare or climate matters that farmers must comply with in order to receive their direct income support (see Article 12 of Regulation 2021/2115). The Regulation sets minimum requirements related to 11 good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAECs), and 9 statutory management requirements (SMRs) referring to the compliance with existing pieces of Union (environmental) law (see Annex 3 of Regulation 2021/2115).  Second, under the CAP, Member States financially support voluntary eco-schemes for “active farmers or groups of active farmers who make commitments to observe agricultural practices beneficial for the climate, the environment and animal welfare and combatting antimicrobial resistance” (Article 31 of Regulation 2021/2115). Third, Member States must dedicate at least 35% of the money they receive to implement rural development interventions to the environmental objectives of the CAP set out above (see Article 69 and Article 93 of Regulation 2021/2115).

In the light of the recent farmers’ protests, the 2023-2027 CAP has been adapted to alleviate i.a. the eco-conditionality system. Most notably, the revised CAP authorises Member States to establish new exemptions for given GAECs or SMRs, removes the obligation on the minimum share of non-productive features and areas removed (GAEC n° 8) and provides that no controls or penalties may be imposed on small farms (farms with less than 10 ha, which represent 65% of CAP beneficiaries and account for approximately 10 % of the total agricultural area) (See Recital 17, Article 2 and annex of Regulation 2024/1468).

The afternoon sessions explored specific tensions between agriculture and the environment. Marilda Dhaskali (BirdLife Europe) presented reports published by BirdLife and other organisations on how Member States implemented the CAP in practice, highlighting environmental shortcomings in the regulatory environment. This echoes evaluations made by both (legal) scholarship (see, for instance, De Sadeleer, 2023 or Verschuuren, 2022) and, for previous CAPs, by the Court of Auditors (see for instance reports 2017/21, 2020/13 or 2021/16, the latter being titled “Common Agricultural Policy and climate: Half of EU climate spending but farm emissions are not decreasing”).

Nieves Noval (ClienEarth) and Nikos Braoudakis (Baldon avocats) discussed the pending case indirectly contesting the Commission’s approval of the French national CAP plan on environmental grounds. Pr. Charles-Hubert Born shared his views on the internal consistency of the CAP, by providing an overview of the national performance-based system in the new CAP (see Article 104 (3) of Regulation 2021/2115) with insights from the Walloon Region’s implementation of the CAP. He also commented the changes of April 2024 that were adopted under the pressure of farmers’ protests, observing that they water down the conditionality in CAP.

The event also included two panel moments with interactive duelists – a first session brought Pr. Antoine Bailleux and Dries Verhaeghe (from Dryade) together on the leverage created by strategic litigation on pesticides use. Both shared cases, some of which their own, to insist on the importance of judicial avenues to enforce environmental rules.

The second panel offered the possibility to hear Virginie Debue (from FWA, the Fédération wallonne de l’agriculture) and Gaetan Seny (from Natagora, an NGO dedicated to environmental protection, including biodiversity and land-related issues), who shared their views on how to make a farmer become greener in the field. Mrs Debue insisted on the administrative and regulatory burden resting on the farmers’ shoulders, pointing at the rigidity of rules related to land erosion for instance. To become greener, farmers should be, according to Mrs Debue, incentivized and not punished. Mr Seny agreed on the increasing burden and bureaucracy but warned that the recent protests that led to considerable changes in CAP caused an important setback in terms of biodiversity and land use, punitive measures pursue at least clear objectives. There was common ground, however, on the lack of coherence in the Walloon regulation and the importance of funding stability. Debue denounced for instance the mandatory dates for harvest or sow without taking specific climate conditions into consideration.

The day ended with a forward-looking discussion led by Pr. Hendrik Schoukens, who wondered if the complexity of the CAP is inevitable as it sounds as a déjà vu. The founding father of CAP, Sicco Mansholt, already incarnated that complexity when drafting his famous letter in 1972 to the President of the European Commission calling for an ecological policy based on the report The limits to Growth. Taking the increasing scarcity of peatlands and swamps due to agricultural evolution as an example, Schoukens concluded that as long as strategic plans are lacking effectiveness, frustrations will continue. CAP will remain dragged in a swamp if no clear vision is set out on the relation between agriculture and the environment. Otherwise, CAP risks falling into the same trap it has before, turning agriculture against the environment.

Seminar cycle Agriculture and Environmental law: old foes or new friends?

The CAP Regulation 2021/2115 provides that farmers receiving direct income support under the CAP, have to respect i.a. statutory management requirements (SMR) laid down in the annex II of the Regulation.

Those SMR are subdivided in 3 domains:

  • public, animal and plant health,
  • animal welfare,
  • and the environment.

To define the requirements and standards associated with those (environmental) statutory management requirements, the PAC’s conditionality system refers to existing (environmental) EU law related to nitrates, water management or birds, for instance. Therefore, if designed correctly, an effective environmental conditionality in the PAC may act as an incentive-based regulatory tool that would be complementary to the traditional standard-setting directives and regulations in the field.  

The present seminar cycle will explore this issue in three steps. It will first explore some of the water- and biodiversity- related SMRs, and their relationship with the legislation referred to by the CAP. Second, it will explore more fundamentally how the CAP’s system reflects a deeper evolution of EU environmental governance, which increasingly relies on governance through (green) spending. Third, prospectively, it will investigate how increasing expert knowledge and technology concerning agricultural carbon capture may lead to it being monetised, commodified and included in the future CAP’s conditionalities.

  1. Water policy and nitrates
  2. Wild birds and habitats
  3. Public spending and environmental conditionalities in the EU
  4. Carbon capture: monetisation, commodification

Download this article in PDF

Glyphosate & Co – Approval process and review tools underAarhus

Webinar – 26 March, 16:30 – 17:30

As farmer protests grew across Europe, on 28 November 2023, the European Commission renewed the approval for the pesticide glyphosate under Regulation EC 1107/2009 : another 10 years of use of the notorious active ingredient for plant protection products. Many civil societyorganisations have challenged this decision, including a consortium of six NGOs led by PAN Europe. After thoroughly investigating the glyphosate re-approval process and identifying several critical flaws, the NGOs submitted a request to the Commission for an internal review.

In the elni webinar series, we will discuss current legal challenges in
the implementation of Regulation EC 1107/2009 with Martin Dermine,
Executive Director of PAN Europe, and Antoine Bailleux, lawyer and legal
scholar.

When: 26 March, 16:30 – 17:30
Where: Online (free)
How to register: Send a quick e-mail to info@elni.org

La reconnaissance universelle du droit à un environnement propre, sain et durable en tant que (nouveau) droit humain (A/76/L.75)

Session de Brainstorming Le 7 novembre 2022

de 10h à 13h – Salle des Examens

Révolution, levier prometteur ou rien de neuf sous le soleil?

Sur inscription ( par courriel à camille.bertaux@usaintlouis.be)

Le droit fondamental à un environnement sain est inséré dans les Constitutions de plus de 110 États aujourd’hui. Cependant, il tardait encore à bénéficier d’une consécration universelle, plus forte que celle portée par la Déclaration de Stockholm en 1972.

Cinquante ans plus tard, le 26 juillet 2022, avec 161 votes en faveur et 8 abstentions, le droit humain à un environnement sain a enfin été reconnu sur la scène universelle par l’Assemblée Générale des Nations Unies. L’Assemblée « recognizes the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment as a human right ». Nous reprenons la version originale en langue anglaise car la traduction française est édulcorée (« considère que le droit à un environnement propre, sain et durable fait partie des droits humains »).

Accordé à l’être humain indépendamment des autres droits fondamentaux et non limité à un territoire donné, le droit à un environnement propre, sain et durable devient donc autonome et universel. Si certains qualifient cette reconnaissance de purement politique, d’autres avancent que cette décision est historique.

Il y a lieu de discuter de l’effet qu’une telle résolution a et pourrait avoir prochainement concernant la manière de protéger l’environnement sur le plan juridique, en droit international, en droit européen – tant au niveau de la CEDH que du droit de l’UE- et en droit interne belge.

 Ainsi,

·      Quels sont les effets de la reconnaissance d’un droit humain autonome ( sans nécessité de ricochet) ?

·      Induit-elle la nécessité de garantir l’effet direct de ce droit (comme le fait déjà l’État de New-York) ?

·      Cette résolution clarifie-t-elle ou transforme-t-elle le contenu du droit à un environnement sain, en Belgique par exemple ( « propre, sain, durable »  – pourquoi le mot ‘safe’ a-t-il disparu ) ?

·      Ce nouveau droit humain est-il tant individuel que collectif ? Vaut-il au bénéfice des générations futures ?

·      Va-t-il provoquer l’adoption d’un nouveau protocole sur l’environnement additionnel à la Convention EDH ? une modification de la jurisprudence de la CEDH ? 

Le brainstorming du 7 novembre 2022 portera donc sur les trois espaces juridiques, au départ d’un échange libre entre participants et de plusieurs spécialités en droit.

PDR Pollution zéro et environnement sain – D.Misonne & C. Bertaux

Seminar series Zero Pollution and a Healthy Environment

PDR “WHO-ENVI-LAW”: WHo guidelines & Environmental law in a moving context – From mere reference to conclusive influence?

Le CEDRE accueille pour quatre ans un nouveau projet de recherche (PDR) financé par le FNRS, sous la direction de Delphine Misonne, appelé WHO-ENVI-LAW et qui comprend:

  • une thèse de doctorat – bienvenue à Camille Bertaux, LL.M in Environmental law at the University of London, et bon succès pour ce magnifique défi
  • une dynamique de recherche collective sur les enjeux globaux du nouveau paradigme du “zero pollution”, sur les liens entre santé-droit & expertise scientifique, sur les avancées du droit de protection des milieux ( dont la qualité de l’air ambiant).

Plus d’infos?

The aim of the doctoral dissertation is:

• to assess the impact of World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines on the content of environmental law, more specifically through the lens of case-law;

• to analyze, through legal research, the main features of the influence of such guidelines on the making and interpretation of legal instruments related to environmental protection, with a specific focus on air quality

• to unfold and better understand the fabrique/production of WHO guidelines, as far as they deal with health-related environmental issues and are meant to act as a guide for decision-makers.

Flash-Info-CEDRE 22 juin: Towards a EU law on nature restoration ?

Towards a brand new « EU law » on nature restoration ? Why – or why rather not?

The EU Biodiversity Strategy 2030 holds the commitment for the European Commission to propose a new law with binding restoration targets. The proposal of the law has been delayed, and is now scheduled for June 2022. This presentation will deal with the advantages such a law could have, as well as possible bottlenecks

By Prof. Dr. An Cliquet, UGent

Introduction by Fanny Vanrykel, doctorante

Hybrid event – P30

1.     Summary of the presentation
Nature protection is an integral part of the EU Green deal and yet, it seems to have been sidelined in EU agenda. While the European Commission introduced a series of proposals in relation to energy and climate last July and more recently on the circular economy, the release of the nature conservation package has been awaited.
In particular, the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 held the commitment for the European Commission to propose a new law with binding restoration targets. This proposal was initially planned for some months ago but it has been delayed. However, current events are catching up with us as this package was released during our event. To discuss this topic, we have invited  Pr. An Cliquet.
 An Cliquet is a professor of international environmental and biodiversity law at Ghent University where she teaches courses on international and European environmental and biodiversity law, law and ethics on marine nature conservation, as well as some courses on public international law in general. She holds a PhD on “Nature conservation in the marine and coastal environment”. She is the author of numerous groundbreaking publications, such as the recent ‘EU nature conservation law, fit for purpose’. She has been involved in several commissions or working groups on nature policy and is the head of the faculty environmental commission.
In her presentation, Professor An Cliquet has discussed how a nature restoration law could fill certain gaps in the existing legal framework and identify the possible obstacles or difficulties to be addressed. Pr Cliquet has started by introducing the worrying state of ecosystems, in spite of the existence of legislation to protect them at EU level, including the Habitat Directive. Science, she underlined, tell us that we need to restore ecosystems. She then noted that while EU Member States have been acknowledged to have made insufficient progress to protect biodiversity, the Habitat Directive was considered to be ‘Fit for purpose’.
Then, Pr. Cliquet turned to the 2030 Biodiversity strategy. This is a lengthy strategy that part of the EU green deal and which is composed of several parts. This strategy among other things committed the Commission to propose legally binding nature restoration targets by 2021. The proposal for a restoration law faced several bottlenecks, especially with the Ukraine war which has led to tensions between biodiversity protection and food security. Ecological restoration is linked to the principle of ’no degradation’ which embeds that conservation status and trends of protected habitats & species should not be deteriorated any further. Other elements of the Strategy include the adoption by Member States of restoration plans covering forest, water ecosystems, urban areas, etc. Pr. Cliquet also briefly discussed the Global Biodiversity Agenda.
In a final part, Pr. Cliquet presented her vision of a EU restoration law. In her view, such a ‘law’ should: have a high ambition level, ensure additionally of restoration obligations, put high priority certain ecosystem types (wetlands and freshwater ecosystems, forests, permanent (semi-natural) grasslands…), propose minimum area targets and clear deadlines (2030, 2040, 2050), ensure non-deterioration for all peatlands, old-growth forests and semi-natural grasslands and be consistent with climate policy. It should also make sure that restoration is properly monitored, reported and funded, and scientifically grounded.
2.     Proposal for a Regulation on nature restoration
The Proposal for a new Restoration Law was released during our seminar. In what follows, I would like to outline the main elements of that Proposal and discuss them in light of Professor Cliquet’s presentation. The key points are the following:
1.     The proposal takes the form of a regulation: It seems that there is an ongoing trend to address environmental problems by means of regulations, as opposed to the use of Directives. We see a similar example with the European Climate Law (regulation 2021/119), which is also named ‘Law’. This can be explained by the willingness of the EU to make fast changes, by avoiding implementation problems that can be encountered with a Directive. As the explanatory memorandum underscores, ‘Since a regulation does not need to be turned into national law, it means restoration measures can start sooner on the ground compared to a directive’. (P 8)
2.     The proposal defines ‘restoration’ as the process of actively or passively assisting the recovery of an ecosystem towards or to good condition, of a habitat type to the highest level of condition attainable and to its favourable reference area, of a habitat of a species to a sufficient quality and quantity, or of species populations to satisfactory levels, as a means of conserving or enhancing biodiversity and ecosystem resilience (Article 3, (3), my emphasis). We thus see that there are several parts in its definition, depending on what is restored, i.e. an ecosystem, a habitat type, a habitat of a species or a species population. For each of these elements, the threshold of restoration is defined by the proposal.
3.     The proposal sets out a series of legally binding targets (Chapter II): These targets are distinguished according to the type of ecosystem concerned (territorial, costal, marine, forest, agricultural). It also contains specific targets e.g. for pollinators. The targets generally take the form of a percentage of the area in which restoration measures need to be in place. The proposal also includes a non-deterioration principle (e.g. Article 4, § 7).
4.     At the same time, the proposal allows some derogations upon justification, due to external events (e.g. climate change) or projects which either are ‘of overriding public interest for which no less damaging alternative solutions are available’ (non Natura 2000 sites) or for in cases covered by Article 6(4) of Directive 92/43/EEC, namely ‘imperative reasons of overriding public interest’, provided that compensatory measures are adopted (Natura 2000 sites).
5.     The proposal requires Member States to make restoration plans (Chapter III): By making these plans, Member States are compelled to carry out preparatory monitoring and research work to identify the restoration measures that are necessary to meet the targets and obligations above based on the latest scientific evidence. These plans will be assessed by the Commission.
6.     The proposal is conceived in synergy with other policy areas: For instance, national restoration plans, including the determination of which restoration measures should be prioritised, should be consistent with climate change mitigation and adaptation, and in particular with national energy and climate plans under Regulation 2018/1999. The proposal also refers to other pieces of EU legislation such as Birds and Habitats Directives.
7.     Finally, Member States are compelled to monitor and report biodiversity and ecosystem conditions (Chapter IV).

Fanny Vanrykel – 30 June 2022
 

NITROGEN deposition AND the EU HABITATS DIRECTIVE: ECOLOGICAL INTEGRITY AS A NEW YARDSTICK IN PERMITTING POLICIES?

CEDRE – Cycle Grands Arrêts du Droit de l’Environnement

Jeudi 22 avril, de 12h à 14h

Par Dr. Hendrik SCHOUKENS, Post-doc UGent

Modération: Prof. Delphine MISONNE, Université Saint-Louis Bruxelles

Slides: cliquez ici

Depuis le 25 février 2021, un arrêt fait la une de l’actualité en Flandres. Une juridiction administrative y a annulé un permis délivré pour un élevage de volailles. Le motif ? L’absence de clarté quant à son impact sur la zone Natura 2000 adjacente, par les dépôts d’azote. La décision, si elle est une première en Belgique, n’est pas pour autant isolée. Elle s’inscrit dans la droite ligne de l’arrêt C-293/17 de la Cour de Justice de l’Union européenne du 7 novembre 2018 sur la notion d’évaluation appropriée des incidences, en lien aux zones spéciales de conservation (« article 6 »). Elle doit aussi être lue dans la continuité d’une jurisprudence correspondante aux Pays-Bas. 

Il convient donc de prendre la mesure de cette évolution cruciale, dans le domaine sensible de la délivrance de permis d’environnement, lorsque les milieux sont devenus tellement saturés et dégradés, au regard des exigences européennes, qu’il n’y a plus d’autre choix que de dire « stop ». 

Le webinaire se tiendra en anglais, avec un débat plurilingue.

Infos pratiques

Quand ? Le jeudi 22 avril de 12 à 14h

Où ? Online via Teams

En pratique : Participation gratuite mais inscription en ligne obligatoire.

23/11 – The constitutionalisation of Environmental Protection in EU Law – Webinar with A.SIKORA

WEBINAR 23 November with A.SIKORA, N.de SADELEER & L. LAVRYSEN

The constitutionalisation 

of Environmental Protection in EU law

12h30. Introduction 

by Prof. Delphine Misonne, CEDRE, Université Saint-Louis Bruxelles

12h40. Constitutional dimension of environmental protection in EU law

by Dr. Alicja Sikora*, on the main tenets of her recent book “Constitutionalisation of environmental protection in EU law” (Europa Law Publishing 2020). 

13h30. Environmental Legal Principles – From Political Slogans to Legal Rules 

by Prof. Nicolas de Sadeleer, Université Saint-Louis Bruxelles, Jean Monnet Chair, on the new edition of its reference book on the function and legal status of environmental principles ( Oxford University Press 2020), with a special focus on EU law at the occasion of the webinar.

14h00. Discussion

by Prof. Luc Lavrysen, UGent, President of the Constitutional Court

Debate with the audience, moderated by Delphine Misonne. 

15h00. End of webinar

Please register before November 18, by sending an e-mail to: delphine.misonne@usaintlouis.be

 with mention Event23November 

The link to the webinar will be provided upon registration

* Associated researcher in CEDRE since January 2020, Dr. Alicja Sikora is an EU law academic, lecturer and practitioner with more than 16 years of experience in EU litigation, as a Legal Secretary at the Court of Justice of the European Union and as a Legal Advisor to the Council of the European Union. Graduate of Jagiellonian University and Université de Reims, Ph.D. in Law (Jagiellonian University, Cracow), Member of the Polish Bar (Cracow), Alicja Sikora currently acts as a Legal Advisor to the Council of the EU, and is a lecturer at the Faculty of Law of the Jagiellonian University. Her research interests focus on structural and constitutional aspects of EU law, as well as EU environmental law. She has published on variety of topics, including a monograph on the financial penalties under Article 260(2) and (3) TFEU (Kluwer Poland 2011).

Position collective – Inscrire le préjudice écologique dans le nouveau Code civil : un enjeu de société au-delà des clivages politiques

Le Code civil est en cours de réforme. Le projet avance à grand pas. Puisque le droit est un construit social, on pourrait s’attendre à ce que le nouveau Code accorde une place explicite au préjudice écologique – soit l’atteinte à la nature pour elle-même et le préjudice collectif qui en découle, en dehors de toute incidence sur des intérêts particuliers. D’autres pays nous ont précédés sur cette voie. Ainsi, le Code civil français précise, depuis 2016, que  « toute personne responsable d’un préjudice écologique est tenue de le réparer ». La Belgique ne possède pas semblable disposition dans son ordre juridique. Les auteurs de la réforme sont conscients des enjeux mais la complexité de ceux-ci les a conduits à reporter le débat.

En tant que spécialistes de diverses branches du droit, dont le droit de l’environnement, académiques ou praticiens, nous estimons que la société n’a pas le temps d’attendre.  Voy. les cartes blanches dans:

Le Soir, 4 mai

De Standaard   Geen milieuschade in het nieuwe burgerlijk wetboek? Dommage! Continuer la lecture de Position collective – Inscrire le préjudice écologique dans le nouveau Code civil : un enjeu de société au-delà des clivages politiques

Intégrer la réparation du préjudice écologique dans le Code civil? C’est le moment d’en discuter!

La présente déclaration, déposée par un collectif de juristes francophones et néerlandophones en droit de l’environnement et du cadre de vie (académiques, avocats, magistrats, assistants, doctorants), a pour objet de proposer l’inscription d’un régime général et subsidiaire de responsabilité civile environnementale dans l’« avant-projet de loi portant insertion des dispositions relatives à la responsabilité extracontractuelle dans le nouveau Code civil » soumis à consultation par le Ministre Koen Geens .

Le collectif fait en effet le constat, reconnu par les auteurs de l’avant-projet, de l’absence d’un volet relatif à la responsabilité civile en cas d’atteinte à l’environnement dans l’avant-projet soumis à consultation. Selon l’exposé des motifs, « A ce stade, le projet ne consacre pas le caractère réparable du préjudice écologique et n’organise pas non plus les modalités de sa réparation. Il se contente d’indiquer que les dommages qui résultent de l’atteinte à un intérêt collectif sont réparables dans les conditions et selon les modalités organisées par la loi. Ce n’est pas que l’importance de la question ait été sous-estimée mais “la complexité des enjeux en termes non seulement de compétences mais aussi de choix des instruments juridiques appropriés a conduit à reporter le débat”.

Continuer la lecture de Intégrer la réparation du préjudice écologique dans le Code civil? C’est le moment d’en discuter!

De nouveaux défis dans un contexte de crises: quel avenir pour le droit européen de l’environnement?

Le projet porte sur la force de résistance et sur les transformations du droit de l’Union européenne en matière d’environnement, dans un contexte de mondialisation et de tensions, positives ou négatives, questionnant sans cesse son ambition et la pertinence de son objectif, celui d’un ‘niveau élevé de protection’.