Dispensation for the Dutch Flora and Fauna Act: noncommittal?
-
Published source details
Bosman W., Schippers T., de Bruin A. & Glorius M. (2011) Compensatie voor amfibieën, reptielen en vissen in de praktijk. RAVON, 40-13, 45-49.
Published source details Bosman W., Schippers T., de Bruin A. & Glorius M. (2011) Compensatie voor amfibieën, reptielen en vissen in de praktijk. RAVON, 40-13, 45-49.
Actions
This study is summarised as evidence for the following.
| Action | Category | |
|---|---|---|
|
Legally protect reptile species Action Link |
 |
|
|
Legal protection of species Action Link |
 |
-
Legally protect reptile species
A review of habitat compensation for protected reptiles in the Netherlands (Bosman et al. 2011) found that legislation was not effective at protecting habitats and reptiles. Only one of four development projects completed habitat compensation measures as set out within legal contracts. Some of the compensation required was provided in two projects (36–68%) and none by one project. Two projects created compensation habitat after destroying habitat, rather than before as required, and the timing was unknown for the remaining two projects. No monitoring data were available from any project. In the Netherlands, reptile species are protected and loss of habitat for these species must be compensated by creating new equivalent habitat. Thirty-one projects required to undertake compensation were selected from government files, of which four had commenced and impacted reptiles. Projects were assessed on the implementation of proposed measures in the approved dispensation contracts and on monitoring data. Field visits were undertaken.
(Summarised by: Katie Sainsbury)
-
Legal protection of species
A review of habitat compensation for amphibians in the Netherlands (Bosman et al. 2011) found that legislation was not effective at protecting habitats and amphibians. Only 10% of 20 development projects had completed habitat compensation measures as set out within legal contracts. Some of the compensation required was provided by 55% of projects and none by 35% of projects. Three of the projects created compensation habitat before destroying habitat as required, three provided it after destruction and timing was unknown for seven projects. No monitoring data were available from any project. For 11 of 31 projects work had not yet started. In the Netherlands, amphibian species are protected and loss of habitat for these species must be compensated by creating new equivalent habitat. Thirty-one projects required to undertake compensation were selected from government files. Projects were assessed on the implementation of proposed measures in the approved dispensation contracts and on monitoring data. Field visits were undertaken.
)_2023.JPG)
