1. Much could be learned from integrative practices in front running member states with some experience with overall planning integration as described above in section 2.3. In these member states spatial planning is seen as an useful framework for balancing all environmental interests and even one planning permission comes in the picture, whereas most other countries still have a traditional sectoral approach. Since we are currently in a transitional period from sectoral to integrative legislation (Europe wide probably, as far as the ESDP is concerned) best practices and experiences could be found in front running nations like UK, Denmark and probably Malta as well.
2. Quango or public agency oriented government might play an interesting depoliticising, expertise and integration facilitating role. EN is probably the best example (see section 2.3 and 2.4).
3. Front running but as yet still deceptive and disappointing interpretation guidances are in the utmost to be found in the UK again, but as stated in section 3.1, they are still in a preliminary stage, as they do not add more to the already existing definitions of the Habitats Directive itself.
4. Interesting legal gadgets are to be found in Germany, but since they have been taken from the traditional administrative law acquis they too are not really innovative. The harshness clause of the domestic implementation legislation (Härtefall in Article 62 and to some extent the agricultural clause of Article 43 BNatSchG as well) might offer an handy and perhaps a legal escape when the HBD work out inconcreto too rigidly as applied. Quasilegislation might regulate this more precisely.